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
  • [21] Pharmacomechanical thrombectomy for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis
    Robertson, Lindsay
    McBride, Olivia
    Burdess, Anne
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2016, (11):
  • [22] Endovascular Management of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis: Who Benefits?
    Desai, Kush R.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 33 (10) : 1171 - 1172
  • [23] Iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis treatment modalities
    Aydin, Ebuzer
    Bademci, Mehmet Senel
    Kocaaslan, Cemal
    Oztekin, Ahmet
    Yalvac, Emine Seyma Denli
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY-VENOUS AND LYMPHATIC DISORDERS, 2020, 8 (05) : 906 - 906
  • [24] Randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis
    Turner, Benedict R.
    Gwozdz, Adam M.
    Davies, Alun H.
    Black, Stephen A.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2024, 65 (01): : 42 - 48
  • [25] Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for acute symptomatic iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis
    Saleem, Taimur
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY-VENOUS AND LYMPHATIC DISORDERS, 2023, 11 (01)
  • [26] Treatment of acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis: A strategy of thrombus removal
    Comerota, A. J.
    Paolini, D.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2007, 33 (03) : 351 - 360
  • [27] Iliofemoral and iliocaval interventions in deep venous thrombosis
    Haage, P
    Günther, RW
    ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2005, 177 (05): : 670 - 680
  • [28] Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Venous Thrombosis
    Liu, Fang
    Lue, Ping
    Jin, Bi
    ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2011, 25 (05) : 707 - 715
  • [29] Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis, with or without Iliac Vein Stenting, in the Treatment of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis
    Ozcinar, Evren
    Dikmen, Nur
    Kayan, Ahmet
    Kandemir, Melisa
    Saricaoglu, Mehmet Cahit
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR DEVELOPMENT AND DISEASE, 2024, 11 (07)
  • [30] Surgical treatment of iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis
    Radak, D
    Ilijevski, N
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE 15TH WORLD CONGRESS UNION INTERNATIONALE DE PHLEBOLOGIE, 2005, : 323 - 326