Percutaneous Thrombectomy with the JETi8 Peripheral Thrombectomy System for the Treatment of 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.

The emerging role of mechanical thrombectomy in acute DVT management

Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) and pharmacomechanical thrombectomy in various technical combinations have been the main driver of acute deep venous interventions for over a decade. While the majority of high-level evidence was based on it, CDT requires longer procedural care and is associated to a small but not negligible bleeding risk. Contemporary DVT intervention, following the paradigm shift in myocardial infarction and stroke management, has steadily migrated towards minimizing or eliminating thrombolytics due to the introduction of mechanical/aspiration thrombectomy. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) devices are undoubtedly improving our ability to remove thrombus more efficiently in a single session without the adverse events and complex logistics related to the use of thrombolytics.

Catheter Directed Thrombectomy and Other Deep Venous Interventions in Cancer Patients

Treating cancer patients with deep venous thrombosis/venous thromboembolism (DVT/VTE) can be challenging as patients are frequently unable to receive the standard therapy of anticoagulation due to the increased risk of bleeding complications seen in this population. Similarly, the hesitation of interventionalists to use thrombolytic agents due to bleeding risks limits percutaneous intervention options as well. Further, outcome data and guidelines do not exist for oncologic patients and often treatment is tailored to patient-specific factors after multidisciplinary discussion. This article reviews specific factors to consider when planning percutaneous treatment of cancer patients with DVT/VTE, focusing on the iliocaval system.

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.

Catheter-directed thrombectomy with the JETi8 in the treatment of acute superior vena cava syndrome

Superior vena cava syndrome can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in acute settings. We report a case of an acute Port-a-Cath-associated thrombosis of the superior vena cava. Percutaneous catheter-directed thrombectomy was performed using the JETi8 thrombectomy device with additional angioplasty and stenting, allowing rapid flow restoration and rapid clinical recovery. Postoperative anticoagulation was initiated and pursued lifelong. This report is unique in illustrating how JETi8 thrombectomy seems to be a safe and effective therapy, allowing rapid flow restoration, rapid clinical improvement, and persistent patency at 6 months.

Endovascular Therapy for the Management of Acute Ilio-femoral Deep Vein Thrombosis

Ilio-femoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has a high rate of long-term morbidity in the form of the postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). Therefore, management of acute thrombosis should not only focus on the prevention of acute complications such as propagation or embolisation of the initial clot but also on preventing recurrent thrombosis and PTS. Contemporary catheter-based treatments of deep vein thrombosis have proven to be safe and effective in selected patients. Current guidelines recommend medical therapy with anticoagulation alone for all but the most severe, limb-threatening thrombosis. They additionally allow for consideration of endovascular catheter-based treatment in selected patients with acute proximal ilio-femoral DVT and low risk of bleeding complications to prevent PTS. 

Imaging-guided, catheter-based endovascular therapy has been used in selected patients to alleviate these sequelae, but important questions remain about their optimal use. In this article, we review the available evidence and summarize the rationale for use of catheter-based therapy in specific patient groups with acute iliofemoral DVT.