Endovascular and Open Surgery for Deep Vein Thrombosis

Calf deep veins are safe and feasible accesses for the endovascular treatment of acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis

This study was designed to assess the optimal access route for the endovascular treatment of acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis who underwent endovascular treatment from February 2009 to December 2020. Patients underwent non-direct calf deep vein puncture (NDCDVP) from February 2009 to December 2011 and direct calf deep vein puncture (DCDVP) from January 2012 to December 2020. Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) was used to treat all patients in the NDCDVP group, whereas patients in the DCDVP group were treated with CDT or the AngioJet rhyolitic thrombectomy system. In patients exhibiting iliac vein compression syndrome, the iliac vein was dilated and implanted with a stent. Technical success rates and perioperative complication rates were compared between these two treatment groups. The NDCDVP group included 83 patients (40 males, 43 females) with a mean age of 55 ± 16 years, while the DCDVP group included 487 patients (231 males. 256 females) with a mean age of 56 ± 15 years. No significant differences were observed between these groups with respect to any analyzed clinical characteristics. The technical success rates in the NDCDVP and DCDVP groups were 96.4 and 98.2%, respectively (P > 0.05). In the NDCDVP group, the small saphenous vein (SSV)or great saphenous vein (GSV)were the most common access routes (77.1%, 64/83), whereas the anterior tibial vein (ATV) was the most common access route in the DCDVP group (78.0%, 380/487), followed by the posterior tibial vein (PTV) and peroneal vein (PV)(15.6% and 6.4%, respectively). Relative to the NDCDVP group, more patients in the DCDVP group underwent the removal of deep vein clots below the knee (7.2% [6/83] vs. 24.2% [118/487], P < 0.001). Moreover, relative to the NDCDVP group, significantly lower complication rates were evident in the DCDVP group (local infection: 10.8% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001; local hematoma: 15.7% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001). The position change rate was also significantly lower in the DCDVP group relative to the NDCDVP group (0% [0/487] vs. 60.2% [50/83], P < 0.001). The calf deep veins (CDVs) represent a feasible and safe access route for the endovascular treatment of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.

Endovascular Strategy for Inferior Vena Cava Thrombosis Secondary to Deep Venous Thrombosis of the Lower Extremities: Early Experience From Two Centres

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety, feasibility and technical aspects of endovascular treatments for inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis secondary to deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective study of patients from two centres who received endovascular treatment for IVC thrombosis from January 2015 to December 2020. Under the protection of the IVC filter, all lesions were treated with manual aspiration thrombectomy (MAT) followed by catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). Technical aspects, complications, IVC patency, Venous Clinical Severity Score (VCSS) score and Villalta score were recorded during the follow-up observation.

RESULTS

Endovascular procedures including MAT and CDT were performed successfully in 36 patients (97.3%). The average duration of the endovascular procedure was 71 minutes (range: 35-152 min). To protect against fatal pulmonary artery embolism, 33 filters (91.7%) were deployed in the inferior renal IVC, while three patients (8.3%) received filter implantation in the retrohepatic IVC. No severe complications occurred during the procedure. In the follow-up observations, the cumulative primary and secondary patency rates in IVC were 95% and 100%, respectively. The patency rates for the iliac vein were as follows: a primary patency rate of 77% and a secondary patency rate of 85%. The average VCSS score was 5.9 ± 2.6, and the Villalta score was 3.9 ± 2.2. The rate of post thrombotic syndrome is 22% in our study as assessed by the villalta score (Villalta score>4).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment for IVC thrombosis secondary to DVT of the lower extremities is feasible, safe, and effective. This strategy alleviates venous insufficiency and results in a high patency rate in IVC.

Massive DVT from the proximal IVC to the pedal vein: Our approach using aspiration mechanical thrombectomy and open surgery thrombectomy

Deep venous thrombosis might present in an acute condition requiring early thrombus removal. Several endovascular and surgical approaches are available with a short treatment time and minimal complications compared to pharmacotherapies. However, due to a lack of evidence, these are not the first treatment choice for deep vein thrombosis. Our case report showed a successful multimodality treatment for an acute-on-chronic massive deep vein thrombosis from the inferior vena cava to the pedal vein. A 47-year-old with chief complaints of cold, significant swelling, and severe pain in her left leg was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis through Doppler ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography. The patient received aspiration mechanical thrombectomy with the "kissing catheter" technique, adjunctive stent, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and open surgical thrombectomy by Fogarty catheter without recurrence and complication.

Catheter-Directed Interventions for the Treatment of Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) leads to significant morbidity including pain, swelling, and difficulty walking in the affected limb. If left untreated, DVT increases the risk of pulmonary embolism (PE), recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), and post thrombotic syndrome (PTS). The objective of this review was to identify catheter-directed interventions and their success rates for the treatment of lower extremity DVT. A comprehensive search of current and emerging catheter-directed interventions for lower extremity DVT treatment was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar. Clinical trials, retrospective and prospective observational studies, and case reports were identified to classify percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT), catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), and pharmacomechanical CDT (PCDT) devices based on their mechanism of action and indication of use. Catheter-directed interventions such as PMT, CDT, and PCDT offer an alternative therapeutic strategy for DVT management, particularly in patients with limb-threatening conditions and absolute contraindications to anticoagulants. Currently, there are limited guidelines for the use of mechanical and pharmacomechanical devices because of the lack of clinical evidence available for their use in treatment. Future studies are required to determine the short and long-term effects of using catheter-directed interventions as well as their effectiveness in treating acute versus subacute and chronic DVT.

Invasive and Pharmacological Treatment of Deep Vein Thrombosis: a Scoping Review

The annual occurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is 300,000-600,000 cases in the United States and 700,000 in Europe. VTE includes deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of upper or lower extremities, superior and inferior vena cava thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism (PE) as well. The primary treatment of DVT includes oral anticoagulation to prevent the progression of the thrombus and decrease the risk of pulmonary embolism. Depending on the symptoms, more invasive treatments can be applied to target the iliofemoral thrombus and its removal. However, less emphasis is given to acute symptomatology, early recovery of function, quality of life improvement, and the individualized likelihood of developing post-thrombotic syndrome. While invasive therapy has been used to enhance the acute management of iliofemoral DVT, our knowledge about the overall outcomes associated with the invasive treatment of VTE is still limited. In this review, we illustrate the available data on pharmacological and endovascular management of iliofemoral VTE, including therapies such as catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), mechanical thrombectomy (PMT), and pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT).

Anticoagulation Treatment in Venous Thromboembolism: Options and Optimal Duration

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), clinically presenting as deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), constitutes a major global healthcare concern with severe complications, long-term morbidity and mortality. Although several clinical, genetic and acquired risk factors for VTE have been identified, the molecular pathophysiology and mechanisms of disease progression remain poorly understood. Anticoagulation has been the cornerstone of therapy for decades, but there still are uncertainties regarding primary and secondary VTE prevention, as well as optimal therapy duration. In this review we discuss the role of factor Xa in coagulation cascade and the different choices of anticoagulation therapy based on patients' predisposing risk factors and risk of event recurrence. Further, we compare newer agents to traditional anticoagulation treatment, based on most recent studies and guidelines.