scholarly journals Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in Acute Femoral–Popliteal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Analysis from a Stratified Randomized Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 119 (04) ◽  
pp. 633-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive Kearon ◽  
Chu-Shu Gu ◽  
Jim Julian ◽  
Samuel Goldhaber ◽  
Anthony Comerota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Femoral Vein ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽  
Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Thrombus Removal ◽  
Deep Vein

Background and Objectives The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial reported that pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) did not reduce post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), but reduced moderate-to-severe PTS and the severity of PTS symptoms. In this analysis, we examine the effect of PCDT in patients with femoral–popliteal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (without involvement of more proximal veins). Patients and Methods Within the ATTRACT trial, 300 patients had DVT involving the femoral vein without involvement of the common femoral or iliac veins and were randomized to receive PCDT with anticoagulation or anticoagulation alone (no PCDT). Patients were followed for 24 months. Results From 6 to 24 months, between the PCDT versus no PCDT arms, there was: no difference in any PTS (Villalta scale ≥ 5: risk ratio [RR] = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–1.24); moderate-or-severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥ 10: RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.57–1.52); severity of PTS scores; or general or disease-specific quality of life (p > 0.5 for all comparisons). From baseline to both 10 and 30 days, there was no difference in improvement of leg pain or swelling between treatment arms. From baseline to 10 days, major bleeding occurred in three versus none (p = 0.06) and any bleeding occurred in eight versus two (p = 0.032) PCDT versus no PCDT patients. Over 24 months, recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 16 PCDT and 12 no PCDT patients (p = 0.24). Conclusion In patients with femoral–popliteal DVT, PCDT did not improve short- or long-term efficacy outcomes, but it increased bleeding. Therefore, PCDT should not be used as initial treatment of femoral–popliteal DVT. (NCT00790335).

scholarly journals Relationships between the use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis, sonographic findings, and clinical outcomes in patients with acute proximal DVT: Results from the ATTRACT Multicenter Randomized Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 442-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ido Weinberg ◽  
Suresh Vedantham ◽  
Amber Salter ◽  
Gail Hadley ◽  
Noor Al-Hammadi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Femoral Vein ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽  
Thrombus Removal ◽  
Residual Thrombus ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
To Receive

Few studies have documented relationships between endovascular therapy, duplex ultrasonography (DUS), post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), and quality of life (QOL). The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial randomized 692 patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to receive anticoagulation or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT). Compression DUS was obtained at baseline, 1 month and 12 months. Reflux DUS was obtained at 12 months in a subset of 126 patients. Clinical outcomes were collected over 24 months. At 1 month, patients who received PCDT had less residual thrombus compared to Control patients, evidenced by non-compressible common femoral vein (CFV) (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), femoral vein (51% vs 70%, p < 0.0001), and popliteal vein (61% vs 74%, p < 0.0001). At 12 months, in the ultrasound substudy, valvular reflux prevalence was similar between groups (85% vs 91%, p = 0.35). CFV non-compressibility at 1 month was associated with higher rates of any PTS (61% vs 46%, p < 0.001), a higher incidence of moderate-or-severe PTS (30% vs 19%, p = 0.003), and worse QOL (difference 8.2 VEINES-QOL (VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life) points; p = 0.004) at 24 months. Valvular reflux at 12 months was associated with moderate-or-severe PTS at 24 months (30% vs 0%, p = 0.01). In summary, PCDT results in less residual thrombus but does not reduce venous valvular reflux. CFV non-compressibility at 1 month is associated with more PTS, more severe PTS, and worse QOL at 24 months. Valvular reflux may predispose to moderate-or-severe PTS. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00790335.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis: 2021 update

2021 ◽  
pp. 1358863X2110429
Author(s):  
Samuel Z Goldhaber ◽  
Elizabeth A Magnuson ◽  
Khaja M Chinnakondepalli ◽  
David J Cohen ◽  
Suresh Vedantham
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
Major Reduction ◽  
Selection Of Patients ◽  
Selection Of

Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has been utilized as an adjunct to anticoagulant therapy in selected patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) for approximately 30 years. CDT used to be limited to patients with DVT causing acute limb threat and those exhibiting failure of initial anticoagulation, but has expanded over time. Randomized trials evaluating the first-line use of CDT for proximal DVT have demonstrated that CDT does not produce a major reduction in the occurrence of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and that it is poorly suited for elderly patients and those with limited thrombus extent or major risk factors for bleeding. However, CDT does offer selected patients with acute iliofemoral DVT improvement in reducing early DVT symptoms, in achieving reduction in PTS severity, and in producing an improvement in health-related quality of life (QOL). Clinical practice guidelines from medical and surgical societies are now largely aligned with the randomized trial results. This review offers the reader an update on the results of recently completed clinical trials, and additional guidance on appropriate selection of patients with DVT for catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis in deep vein thrombosis: Which procedural measurement predicts outcome?

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 135-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Grommes ◽  
KT von Trotha ◽  
MA de Wolf ◽  
H Jalaie ◽  
CHA Wittens
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Venous Obstruction ◽  
Deep Venous System ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Risk Of Bleeding ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Deep Vein ◽  
Procedural Outcome

The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) as a long-term consequence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is caused by a venous obstruction and/or chronic insufficiency of the deep venous system. New endovascular therapies enable early recanalization of the deep veins aiming reduced incidence and severity of PTS. Extended CDT is associated with an increased risk of bleeding and stenting of residual venous obstruction is indispensable to avoid early rethrombosis. Therefore, this article focuses on measurements during or after thrombolysis indicating post procedural outcome.

A case-controlled study on AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis in the treatment of acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis

Vascular ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Zhu ◽  
Cai-Fang Ni ◽  
Zhen-Yu Dai ◽  
Li-Zheng Yao ◽  
Wen-Hui Li
Keyword(s):  
Deep Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Vein Thrombosis ◽  
Catheter Directed Thrombolysis ◽  
Rheolytic Thrombectomy ◽  
Thrombus Removal ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Deep Vein

Objective This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy vs. catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Methods Between the period of February 2015 and October 2016, 65 patients with documented acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis were treated with catheter-directed intervention. These patients were divided into two groups: AngioJet group and catheter-directed thrombolysis group. Comparisons were made with regard to efficacy and safety between these two groups. Results In the AngioJet group, complete or partial thrombus removal was accomplished in 23 (72%) and 3 (9%) patients, respectively. In the catheter-directed thrombolysis group, complete or partial thrombus removal was accomplished in 27 (82%) patients and 1 (3%) patient, respectively. In the AngioJet group, the perimeter difference between the suffered limb and healthy one declined from 5.1 ± 2.3 cm to 1.4 ± 1.2 cm ( P <  0.05). In the catheter-directed thrombolysis group, the perimeter difference declined from 4.7 ± 1.6 cm to 1.5 ± 0.9 cm ( P <  0.05). The mean urokinase dose was 0.264 ± 0.135 million units in the AngioJet group and 1.869 ± 0.528 million units in the catheter-directed thrombolysis group ( P <  0.05). The duration of thrombolysis was 4.2 ± 1.7 h in the AngioJet group and 73.6 ± 18.3 h in the catheter-directed thrombolysis group ( P <  0.05). The occurrence of complications in these two groups was 19% and 18%, respectively (not significant). Conclusion AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy is a new, safe and effective approach for treating acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. When compared to catheter-directed thrombolysis, this treatment provides similar success with lower urokinase dosage and shorter duration of thrombolysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document