Risk factors and classification of reintervention following deep venous stenting for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis

被引:17
|
作者
Pouncey, Anna L. [1 ]
Kahn, Taha [1 ]
Morris, Rachel, I [1 ]
Saha, Prakash [1 ]
Thulasidasan, Narayanan [2 ]
Black, Stephen A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Kings Coll London, Acad Dept Vasc Surg, Cardiovasc Div, St Thomas Hosp, London, England
[2] Guys & St Thomas Hosp, Dept Intervent Radiol, London, England
关键词
Deep vein thrombosis treatment; Deep venous stent; Post-thrombotic syndrome; Surgical reintervention; Thrombolysis; CATHETER-DIRECTED THROMBOLYSIS; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; POSTTHROMBOTIC SYNDROME; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; RESIDUAL THROMBUS; THERAPY; COMPRESSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jvsv.2022.03.006
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is associated with the development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Thrombolysis and deep venous stenting can restore vessel outflow and can reduce the incidence of PTS. However, for a proportion of patients, subsequent stenosis or reocclusion will necessitate further intervention. In the present study, we aimed to identify the risk factors, examine the outcomes (reintervention success and PTS), and develop a classification system for reintervention. Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study of patients who had undergone successful lysis for iliofemoral DVT from 2013 to 2017. The patients' records and imaging studies were examined for demographics, risk factors, extent of thrombus and vessel clearance, stenting, flow, reintervention, anticoagulation compliance, Villalta score, and secondary patency. From our findings, a system of classification for patients for whom procedures have failed was developed, constituting technical, hematologic, flow related, or multiple factors. Results: Of 143 limbs (133 patients), 48 (33.6%) had required reintervention, of which 25 had presented with reocclusion (17.4%). The median time to reintervention was 45 days. The need for reintervention was associated with inferior vena cava thrombus (risk ratio [RR], 2.16; P < .01), stenting across the inguinal ligament (RR, 2.08; P < .01), and anticoagulation noncompliance (RR, 7.09; P < .01). Successful reintervention was achieved in 31 limbs (64.6%): 23 of 23 (100%) treated before occlusion vs 8 of 25 (36.4%) treated after occlusion (RR, 32.31; P < .01). A greater incidence of any PTS was observed for patients requiring reintervention (median Villalta score, 3 [interquartile range, 1-5]; vs 1 [interquartile range, 1-4]; RR, 2.28; P = .029). Cases without complete vessel occlusion (reintervention and control) had a lower rate of any PTS (14.0% vs 42.9%; RR, 3.06; P < .01) and moderate to severe PTS (3.0% vs 14.3%; RR, 4.76; P = .046) Technical issues were observed in 54.2% of reintervention cases and 6.3% of cases not requiring reintervention (P < .01). Hematologic issues were identified in 33.3% of reintervention cases and 1.1% of cases not requiring reintervention (P < .01). Flow-related issues were observed in 43.8% of the reintervention cases and no cases not requiring reintervention (P < .01). Of the reintervention cases, 27.1% were multifactorial and were associated with a lower rate of vessel salvage; however, this did not translate into a significant difference in secondary patency on survival analysis (RR, 1.70; P = .429). Conclusions: A large proportion of patients required reintervention because of potentially preventable factors. Anticoagulation compliance, thrombus burden, and poor flow are important risk factors to consider in patient selection. Reintervention increased the risk of PTS and was more often successful when achieved before vessel occlusion.
引用
收藏
页码:1051 / +
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Initial Outcomes In Iliofemoral Stenting In Acute Vs Chronic Deep Venous Thrombosis
    Rucker, L. Graham
    Robertson, Brent
    Reichard, Adam
    Austin, Emily
    Muck, Patrick
    Broering, Mark
    Kulwicki, Aaron
    Kuhn, Brian
    Fellner, Angie
    Recht, Matthew
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2022, 76 (04) : E60 - E61
  • [2] Hereditary factors of the risk of deep venous [deep vein] thrombosis
    Trapeznikova, E.
    Vorobyeva, N.
    THROMBOSIS RESEARCH, 2013, 131 : S80 - S80
  • [3] Treatment of acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis
    Casey, Edward T.
    Murad, M. Hassan
    Zumaeta-Garcia, Magaly
    Elamin, Mohamed B.
    Shi, Qian
    Erwin, Patricia J.
    Montori, Victor M.
    Gloviczki, Peter
    Meissner, Mark
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2012, 55 (05) : 1463 - 1473
  • [4] Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis With Central Venous Catheter
    DiGiacinto, Dora
    Gilmore, Jennifer
    Sharp, Kassidy
    JOURNAL OF DIAGNOSTIC MEDICAL SONOGRAPHY, 2025, 41 (01) : 73 - 76
  • [5] Endovascular therapy for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis
    Langer, Stephan
    Regeniter, Philipp
    PHLEBOLOGIE, 2021, 50 (03) : 208 - 214
  • [6] Endovascular Management of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis
    Huang, Michael H. H.
    Benishay, Elana T. T.
    Desai, Kush R. R.
    SEMINARS IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 39 (05) : 459 - 463
  • [7] A risk score for iliofemoral patients with deep vein thrombosis
    Shekarchian, Soroosh
    Notten, Pascale
    Barbati, Mohammad Esmaeil
    Razavi, Crystal
    Van Laanen, Jorinde
    Nieman, Fred
    Razavi, Mahmood K.
    Moossdorff, Wim
    Mees, Barend
    Jalaie, Houman
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY-VENOUS AND LYMPHATIC DISORDERS, 2022, 10 (01) : 33 - +
  • [8] Interventional treatment for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis
    Tan, Matthew
    Vedantham, Suresh
    Narayanan, Sriram
    Parsi, Kurosh
    Davies, Alun H.
    PHLEBOLOGY, 2024, 39 (02) : 139 - 142
  • [9] Iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis should be managed routinely with thrombolysis and stenting
    Ozdemir, Baris A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 109 (08) : 665 - 666
  • [10] Iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis should not be managed routinely with thrombolysis and stenting
    Prandoni, Paolo
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 109 (08) : 663 - 664