Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of the Endovascular Treatment for Acute Limb Ischemia with Percutaneous Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy Compared with Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 470-478
Author(s):  
Rafael de Athayde Soares ◽  
Marcelo Fernando Matielo ◽  
Francisco Cardoso Brochado Neto ◽  
Bruno Vinícius Pereira de Carvalho ◽  
Roberto Sacilotto
2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (7) ◽  
pp. 558-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse Chait ◽  
Afsha Aurshina ◽  
Natalie Marks ◽  
Anil Hingorani ◽  
Enrico Ascher

Objective: Thrombolytic therapy is widely used in the treatment of arterial occlusions causing acute limb ischemia (ALI); however, knowledge regarding the efficacy of the different catheter systems available is scarce. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of 2 catheter-directed infusion systems for intra-arterial thrombolysis in the setting of ALI. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted to study all catheter-directed thrombolysis procedures performed over 32 months in patients diagnosed with ALI. Patients with thrombosis in both native arteries and bypass grafts were included. Patients with contraindications to thrombolysis, or those receiving thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis, were excluded. The duration of thrombolysis, amount of thrombolytic agent, and technical success rate were recorded. Technical success was defined as complete or near-complete resolution of thrombus burden, allowing for further intervention. Data were stratified to include location of thrombus, procedural complications, mortality, and rates of limb loss. Results: Ninety-one patients met inclusion criteria. Among them, Uni-Fuse and EKOS catheters were used in 69 and 22 patients, respectively. The mean age of the population was 71 (standard deviation [SD]: ±1.5) for patients treated with the EKOS catheter and 70 years (SD: ±2.6) for patients receiving thrombolysis with Uni-Fuse. There was no significant difference in the mean infusion duration (1.65 vs 1.9 days), volume of tissue plasminogen activator (44.6 vs 48.2 mg), or technical success rate (72% vs 86%) between the Uni-Fuse and EKOS cohorts ( P > .3). Furthermore, there was no difference in major limb loss or compartment syndrome between each group ( P > .4). The overall complication rate was 14% in both groups, with a 30-day mortality rate of 4% when treated with either catheter system. Conclusion: This study suggests that a standard multi-hole infusion catheter demonstrates similar clinical safety and efficacy as the ultrasound-accelerated EKOS system in the treatment of ALI.


VASA ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Maxien ◽  
Barbara Behrends ◽  
Karla M. Eberhardt ◽  
Tobias Saam ◽  
Sven F. Thieme ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (18) ◽  
pp. 1081
Author(s):  
Aakash Sheth ◽  
Harsh Patel ◽  
Kirtenkumar Patel ◽  
Samarthkumar Thakkar ◽  
Krunalkumar Patel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Po-Kai Yang ◽  
Chien-Chou Su ◽  
Chih-Hsin Hsu

AbstractIn Taiwan, the outcomes of acute limb ischemia have yet to be investigated in a standardized manner. In this study, we compared the safety, feasibility and outcomes of acute limb ischemia after surgical embolectomy or catheter-directed therapy in Taiwan. This study used data collected from the Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Database (NHID) and Cause of Death Data between the years 2000 and 2015. The rate ratio of all-cause in-hospital mortality and risk of amputation during the same period of hospital stay were estimated using Generalized linear models (GLM). There was no significant difference in mortality risk between CDT and surgical intervention (9.5% vs. 10.68%, adjusted rate ratio (95% CI): regression 1.0 [0.79–1.27], PS matching 0.92 [0.69–1.23]). The risk of amputation was also comparable between the two groups. (13.59% vs. 14.81%, adjusted rate ratio (95% CI): regression 0.84 [0.68–1.02], PS matching 0.92 [0.72–1.17]). Age (p < 0.001) and liver disease (p = 0.01) were associated with higher mortality risks. Heart failure (p = 0.03) and chronic or end-stage renal disease (p = 0.03) were associated with higher amputation risks. Prior antithrombotic agent use (p = 0.03) was associated with a reduced risk of amputation. Both surgical intervention and CDT are effective and feasible procedures for patients with ALI in Taiwan.


2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 106S-107S
Author(s):  
Maria E. Litzendorf ◽  
Jean E. Starr ◽  
Bhagwan Satiani ◽  
Katherine E. Notter

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 185-185
Author(s):  
Majda Vrkic Kirhmajer ◽  
Ljiljana Banfic ◽  
Kresimir Putarek ◽  
Miroslav Krpan ◽  
Savko Dobrota ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-24
Author(s):  
Ali Farhan Fathoni ◽  
Raden Suhartono

Introduction. Acute limb ischemia can be managed both with surgery and thrombolysis, especially catheter-directed thrombolysis. The risk, benefit and indication of thrombolysis is already well known. However, as a first line therapy, it is unclear which intervention is more beneficial; the catheter directed thrombolysis or surgery. This report aims to elucidate which technique is more effective and safer. Method. This is an Evidence-Based Case Report based on a case of a geriatric, diabetic patient whom suffered acute limb ischemia. The report systematically search for meta-analysis, systematic review, randomized controlled trial and cohort studies from Cochrane central and PubMed for all adult patient suffering from acute limb ischemia whose are treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis or surgery as first-line intervention and comparing the outcome in terms of efficacy (clinical outcome such as patency and amputation-free rates) and safety (mortality and morbidity). Results. Subjects’ characteristics should be placed first to draw the demography. Put the study finding(s) here with no interpretation. For all adult patient regardless of their diabetic status and age there is no statistically significant difference for limb salvage, amputation, and mortality between two technique, however catheter directed thrombolysis showed reduced need for additional intervention whilst increasing risk of bleeding events. Conclusion. Neither techniques are more superior than the other but catheter-directed thrombolysis can be considered given that it reduce the need for further intervention, less invasive and even though it has risks for bleeding complication it is still lower compared to systemic thrombolysis. The selection of which technique can be up to clinician’s discretion in consideration of risk and benefit for each patient.


Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 132 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Genovese ◽  
Kenneth J Smith ◽  
Neal R Barshes ◽  
Michel S Makaroun ◽  
Donald T Baril

Introduction: Treatment of acute limb ischemia (ALI) has a high morbidity and mortality given patients’ multiple comorbidities, poor physiologic reserve, and the need for emergent intervention. Traditionally ALI of embolic origin has been treated with open revascularization (OR), however with increasing experience with thrombolytic therapy and adjuvant techniques, endovascular revascularization (ER) for ALI has become a more common treatment due to the lower associated morbidity and mortality. Hypothesis: Although associated with higher initial costs and lower technical success rates, ER will be cost effective given the decreased adverse event rate and mortality in a frail patient population. Methods: A Markov state-transition model was created to simulate patient oriented outcomes, including technical success, adverse events, limb salvage, discharge facility and quality adjusted life years (QALY) for patients presenting with Rutherford Classification I/IIa/IIb ALI secondary to cardiac embolism. A societal perspective was assumed with a 10-year time horizon. Parameter estimates were derived from published literature and primary data of cardioembolic ALI patients treated at our institution from 2005-2011 with either ER or OR. Costs were adjusted to 2013 U.S. dollars. Results: In the model, OR was technically successful in 87% patients, with a $23,881 cost for the initial hospitalization and a 11.5% perioperative mortality rate; ER was technically successful in 71% of patients, with a $39,619 initial cost, and a 4% mortality rate. At 10 years, the ER strategy cost $92,659/QALY gained compared to OR. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that ER was favorable at a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY when ER technical success was >70%, initial ER hospitalization cost was <$41,052 or if OR mortality was >10%. At a WTP of $50,000/QALY, ER was cost effective if technical success reached 79%, if ER cost was <$31,287 or if OR mortality was >23%. Conclusions: Contemporary endovascular treatment of cardioembolic ALI carries a greater cost compared to open revascularization, however it is associated with a decreased mortality rate. ER is potentially cost-effective in patients who are at high risk of post-operative mortality following OR.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document