Intermittent pneumatic compression of the foot and calf improves the outcome of catheter-directed thrombolysis using low-dose urokinase in patients with acute proximal venous thrombosis of the leg

Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Protocols for Deep Venous Thrombosis of the Lower Extremities-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

 To summarize characteristics, complications, and success rates of different catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) protocols for the treatment of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (LE-DVT).

METHODS

 A systematic review using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies related to LE-DVT treated with CDT. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to obtain the pooled proportions of early complications, postthrombotic syndrome (PTS), and venous patency.

RESULTS

 Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria reporting 49 protocols (n = 3,028 participants). In studies that addressed the thrombus location (n = 37), LE-DVT had iliofemoral involvement in 90 ± 23% of the cases. Only four series described CDT as the sole intervention for LE-DVT, while 47% received additional thrombectomy (manual, surgical, aspiration, or pharmacomechanical), and 89% used stenting.Definition of venogram success was highly variable, being the Venous Registry Index the most used method (n = 19). Among those, the minimal thrombolysis rate (<50% lysed thrombus) was 0 to 53%, partial thrombolysis (50-90% lysis) was 10 to 71%, and complete thrombolysis (90-100%) was 0 to 88%. Pooled outcomes were 8.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.6-10.7) for minor bleeding, 1.2% (95% CI: 0.8-1.7%) for major bleeding, 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.6) for pulmonary embolism, and 0.6% (95% CI: 0.3-0.9) for death. Pooled incidences of PTS and of venous patency at up to 1 year of follow-up were 17.6% (95% CI: 11.8-23.4) and 77.5% (95% CI: 68.1-86.9), respectively.

CONCLUSION

 Assessment of the evidence is hampered by the heterogeneity of protocols, which may be reflected in the variation of PTS rates. Despite this, CDT is a low-risk treatment for LE-DVT.

The background and role of catheter-directed thrombolysis evolving procedures for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis

Minimal invasive treatment such as early endovenous thrombus removal for iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) emerged in the end of last century. The principle is catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) using either plasminogen activating agents alone, as ultrasound-assisted CDT, or in combination with mechanical devices as pharmaco-mechanical CDT. The interest for this treatment modality is the high rate of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) with anticoagulation (AC) alone, especially after iliofemoral DVT. Recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing early thrombus removal with AC alone, as well as non-randomized studies, have demonstrated favorable rates, or at least a decrease of moderate and severe PTS, in favor of these procedures. This article will summarize the background and evolution of the procedures in the last three decades and discuss fundamental criteria for inclusion and exclusion, focusing on the procedures regarding thrombus age and location, technical issues, complications and results including different outcome measures for PTS, for which iliac DVT involvement is a massive risk factor to be prevented.

Impact of concomitant popliteal vein thrombosis in patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis treated with endovascular early thrombus removal

Summary: Background: Catheter-based thrombus removal (CBTR) reduces the risk of moderate to severe post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IF-DVT). However, the impact of concomitant popliteal DVT on clinical and duplex sonographic outcomes is unknown. Patients and methods: In this post-hoc analysis including the entire cohort of the randomized controlled BERNUTIFUL trial (48 patients), we compared clinical (incidence/severity of PTS assessed by Villalta score and revised venous clinical severity scores, rVCSS), disease-specific quality-of-life (QOL, CIVIQ-20 survey) and duplex sonographic outcomes (patency, reflux, post-thrombotic lesions) at 12 months follow-up between patients with IF-DVT with and without concomitant popliteal DVT treated by CBTR. Results: Overall, 48 IF-DVT patients were included (48% men, median age of 50 years), of whom 17 (35%) presented with popliteal DVT. At baseline, patients with popliteal DVT were older, had a higher body mass index and more important leg swelling. At 12 months, freedom from PTS (93% vs 87%, P=0.17), median total Villalta score (1 vs 1.5; P=0.46), rVCSS (2 vs 1.5, P=0.5) and disease-specific QOL (24 points vs 24 points, P=0.72) were similar between patient with and without popliteal DVT, respectively. Duplex sonographic outcomes were similar, except for more frequent popliteal post-thrombotic lesions and reflux (P=0.02) in patients with popliteal DVT. Conclusions: Relevant clinical outcomes 1 year after successful CBTR were favorable, regardless of the presence or absence of concomitant popliteal DVT. However, post-thrombotic popliteal vein lesions and reflux are more frequent in IF-DVT patients with popliteal involvement. Their impact on long-term outcomes remains to be investigated.

AngioJet Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy and Catheter Directed Thrombolysis vs. Catheter Directed Thrombolysis Alone for the Treatment of Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Single Centre Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Percutaneous thrombus removal is used for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT), but the efficacy of different treatment modalities has not yet been determined. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients treated with additional AngioJet pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (PCDT) vs. catheter directed lysis (CDT) alone.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who received thrombolysis for the treatment of symptomatic acute iliofemoral DVT between 2011 and 2017 was carried out. Outcome measures included the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), procedural outcomes (lytic exposure), the incidence of complications, and vessel patency. All patients were followed up for a minimum of one year.

RESULTS

A total of 151 limbs were treated, 70 limbs with PCDT and 81 limbs with CDT alone. Demographic data and prevalence of risk factors were comparable. Incidence of PTS (Villalta score at one year) showed no significant difference (22.2% PCDT vs. 24.7% CDT alone, p = .74). Use of PCDT resulted in a non-statistically significant trend for fewer bleeds (n = 4/63 [6.3%] vs. 13/76 [17.1%]; relative risk 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-1.08; p = .07), a statistically significant reduction in lysis duration (40 h [95% CI 34-46] vs. 53 h [95% CI 49-58]; p < .001) and a reduction in lytic dose (49 mg [95% CI 42-55] vs. 57 mg [95% CI 52-61]; p = .011) compared with CDT. This reduction was accentuated in 24 cases primarily treated with AngioJet PowerPulse mode (27 h, 95% CI 20-34 [p < .001] and 42 mg, 95% CI 34-50 [p = .009]). Incidences of complications were comparable between groups, with one death due to an intracranial haemorrhage following CDT. Although the incidence of haemoglobinuria was increased following PCDT (12/63 [19.0%] vs. 3/76 [3.9%]; p = .006), no significant difference in acute kidney injury was observed (3/63 [4.8%] vs. 1/76 [1.3%]; p = .33). No significant difference in vessel patency over two years was observed (p = .73).

CONCLUSION

The use of PCDT for the treatment of iliofemoral DVT was observed to provide comparable patient outcomes, comparable vessel patency, an acceptable safety profile, and reduced overall lytic dose.

Intervention for Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis and May-Thurner Syndrome

May-Thurner syndrome, also known as iliac vein compression syndrome, may cause symptoms of venous hypertension and is a predisposing factor for the development of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Iliofemoral DVT is associated with high rates of development of postthrombotic syndrome, a potentially debilitating condition associated with development of symptoms related to venous outflow obstruction and resulting in reduced quality of life. In this Clinics article, we review procedural intervention with catheter-directed thrombolysis and stenting for iliofemoral DVT and iliac vein compression.

Safety and Efficacy of Catheter Direct Thrombolysis in Management of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Systematic Review

Purpose

Catheter direct thrombolysis (CDT) has been shown to be an effective treatment for deep venous thrombosis. The objective of the review is to improve safety and efficacy of the CDT by using ward based protocol, better able to predict complications and treatment outcome through monitoring of haemostatic parameters and clinical observation during thrombolysis procedure.

Materials and Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science were searched for all articles on deep venous thrombosis, thrombolysis and correlations of clinical events (bleeding, successful thrombolysis) during thrombolysis with hemostatic parameters to March 2016. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions.

Results

Twenty-four studies were included in the review and we found that improving safety and efficacy of CDT by using ward based protocol depending on eight factors; strict patient selection criteria, types of fibrinolytic drugs, mode of fibrinolytic drug injection, biochemical markers monitoring (fibrinogen, D-dimer, activated partial thromboplastin time, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1), timing of intervention, usage of intermittent pneumatic calf, ward monitoring and thrombolysis imaging assessment (intravascular ultrasound). These factors may help to improve safety and efficacy by reducing total thrombolytic drug dosage and at the same time ensure successful lysis. There is a marked lack of randomized controlled trials discussing the safety and efficacy of catheter direct thrombolysis.

Conclusion

CDT can be performed safely and efficiently in clinical ward, providing that careful nursing, biochemical monitoring, proper selection and mode of infusion of fibrinolytic drugs, usage of Intermittent pneumatic calf and adequate thrombolysis imaging assessment are ensured.

Should catheter-directed thrombolysis be monitored?

Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis is considered the basic treatment modality for intrathrombus removal. This method is preferably used in patients with iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis due to poor spontaneous recanalization in this segment, especially on the left side. The method was published almost 25 years ago and has gained ground in the treatment because of poor results from systemic thrombolysis and because of the possibility of stenting any underlying iliac obstruction during the procedure. However, the publications of catheter-directed thrombolysis reveal a great heterogeneity concerning catheter-directed thrombolysis technique and the lack of high quality evidence about monitoring as a tool to minimize the risk of bleeding and pulmonary embolism. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, correct composition and infusion of thrombolysis agent, imaging thrombus clearance during catheter-directed thrombolysis, ensuring flow enhancement during the bedridden situation, careful evaluation of indication for stenting based on imaging, and sufficient conversion to anticoagulation treatment following catheter-directed thrombolysis are essential. The aim of this paper is to discuss different treatment aspects of catheter-directed thrombolysis for iliofemoral thrombosis and to suggest a monitoring model for future treatment.

EkoSonic Thrombolysis as a Therapeutic Adjunct in Venous Occlusive Disease

The use of ultrasound waves in conjunction with local thrombolysis may accelerate clot resolution and serve as an important therapeutic adjunct in the treatment of venous occlusive disease. Our goal was to provide a larger sample population over a 5-year period to evaluate our experience with the EkoSonic endovascular system (EKOS, EKOS Corporation, Bothell, WA). We suspected that ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) using EKOS would provide excellent thrombolysis and midterm patency rates with minimal thrombolytic complications. A retrospective study was conducted to provide a case series with UAT using EKOS. Data were collected over a 5-year period. Primary end points included degree of thrombolysis. Secondarily, we analyzed thrombolytic usage, complication rates, and midterm patency, over a 1-year period. A total of 48 limbs were treated with UAT. Forty cases were diagnosed as acute, whereas the remaining 8 were chronic. Complete thrombolysis was successful in 38/48 (79%) of patients, and partial thrombolysis was accomplished in 10/48 (21%) of patients. Overall mean infusion time was 22.4 hours ±3.6. There were a total of three complications (6%), all of which were minor bleeding. One-year patency was shown to be 87% with no signs of valvular reflux. UAT using EKOS demonstrated effective rates of thrombolysis with very few complications. In addition, our 1-year patency rates were comparable to published data using conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis. UAT provides lytic therapy by utilizing the benefits of ultrasonic waves to help augment the fibrinolytic process. Our institution currently favors the use of EKOS as the treatment of choice in patients that are appropriate thrombolytic candidates.

Report from the 2013 meeting of the International Compression Club on advances and challenges of compression therapy

The International Compression Club, a collaboration of medical experts and industry representatives, was founded in 2005 to develop consensus reports and recommendations regarding the use of compression therapy in the treatment of acute and chronic vascular disease. During the recent meeting of the International Compression Club, member presentations were focused on the clinical application of intermittent pneumatic compression in different disease scenarios as well as on the use of inelastic and short stretch compression therapy. In addition, several new compression devices and systems were introduced by industry representatives. This article summarizes the presentations and subsequent discussions and provides a description of the new compression therapies presented.

Indications for stenting during thrombolysis

The most important vein segment to thrombolyse after deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is the outflow tract meaning the iliofemoral vein. Iliofemoral DVT is defined as DVT in the iliac vein and the common femoral vein. Spontaneous recanalization is less than 50%, particularly on the left side. The compression from adjacent structures, predominantly on the left side is known as the iliac vein compression syndrome. Therefore, it is essential that supplementary endovenous procedures have to be performed in case of persistent obstructive lesions following catheter-directed thrombolysis. Insertion of a stent in this position is the treatment of choice facilitating the venous flow into an unobstructed outflow tract either from the femoral vein or the deep femoral vein or both. The stent, made of stainless steel or nitinol, has to be self-expandable and flexible with radial force to overcome the challenges in this low-pressure system. The characteristics of the anatomy with external compression and often a curved vein segment with diameter difference make stent placement necessary. Ballooning alone has no place in this area. The proportion of inserted stents varies in the published materials with catheter-directed thrombolysis of iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis.

Endovascular treatment options for chronic venous obstructions

Chronic venous obstructions have been treated by means of bypass surgery, until, in recent decades, it was surpassed by endovascular treatment options. Although techniques may differ, some issues should be universal. It is recommended that patients are treated under general anaesthesia. Secondly, obstructive lesions should be fully stented. Finally, self-expandable stents should mainly be used. Recanalization and stenting proved safe and efficient with excellent mid- and long-term patency rates. However, failures due to re-occlusion do occur and are basically related to imperfect stent design and/or suboptimal inflow. Therefore, the main focus should be on the development of optimal stent configuration, that is, sufficient length, highest possible radial force and flexibility. Moreover, the significance of endophlebectomy with or without creation of an arteriovenous fistula should be established.

[The role of thrombolysis in the clinical management of deep vein thrombosis]

Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT) therapies have been judged primarily on their ability to prevent symptomatic pulmonary embolism, early thrombus progression, and recurrent VTE. The cornerstones of current management of DVT, supported by the 2008 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, are the routine use of anticoagulant therapy, graduated elastic compression stockings, and early ambulation. For selected appropriate patients with extensive acute proximal DVT, while the French recommendations (Afssaps 2009) still consider thrombolysis not indicated, ACCP guidelines now suggest in-situ thrombolysis in addition to anticoagulation to reduce the risk of subsequent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) and recurrent DVT (Grade 2 B recommendation). Contemporary invasive endovascular treatments, called pharmacomechanical treatment, mitigate the drawbacks (major bleeding) historically associated with systemic thrombolytic approaches, by means of intra-thrombus delivery of drugs, followed by mechanical dispersion to accelerate lysis and then aspiration of remaining drug and clot debris. The proof of concept for the "open vein" hypothesis - that a strategy of early thrombus removal can reduce the incidence of PTS long term - comes incrementally and randomized trials (ATTRACT trial with a 2016 target completion date) are currently under way and might lead to a shift of the paradigms of the management of acute DVT focused on active thrombus removal.

Endovascular treatment of peripheral vascular disease

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects about 27 million people in North America and Europe, accounting for up to 413,000 hospitalizations per year with 88,000 hospitalizations involving the lower extremities and 28,000 involving embolectomy or thrombectomy of lower limb arteries. Many patients are asymptomatic and, among symptomatic patients, atypical symptoms are more common than classic claudication. Peripheral arterial disease also correlates strongly with risk of major cardiovascular events, and patients with PAD have a high prevalence of coexistent coronary and cerebrovascular disease. Because the prevalence of PAD increases progressively with age, PAD is a growing clinical problem due to the increasingly aged population in the United States and other developed countries. Until recently, vascular surgical procedures were the only alternative to medical therapy in such patients. Today, endovascular practice, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty with or without stenting, is used far more frequently for all types of lower extremity occlusive lesions, reflecting the continuing advances in imaging techniques, angioplasty equipment, and endovascular expertise. The role of endovascular intervention in the treatment of limb-threatening ischemia is also expanding, and its promise of limb salvage and symptom relief with reduced morbidity and mortality makes percutaneous transluminal angioplasty/stenting an attractive alternative to surgery and, as most endovascular interventions are performed on an outpatient basis, hospital costs are cut considerably. In this monograph we discuss current endovascular intervention for treatment of occlusive PAD, aneurysmal arterial disease, and venous occlusive disease.

Endovascular treatment of venous occlusive disease

Endovascular treatment of acute and chronic iliac vein occlusions has proven to be safe and effective. Recanalization of chronic occlusions with balloon angioplasty and stenting can re-establish normal venous flow in the iliac veins and the IVC and relieve symptoms in the majority of treated patients. CDT with recanalization and stenting of underlying chronically obstructed iliofemoral segments is becoming the treatment of choice for patients with acute iliofemoral thrombosis, as anticoagulation and compression therapy alone are not satisfactory in preventing PTS. The new treatment modalities offer stimulating options for a patient group that is not adequately treated, neither by medical nor open surgical therapy. The substantial effort and additional costs of endovascular treatment appear to be justified by the encouraging mid-term results both for patients with acute and chronic occlusive iliofemoral disease. However, multi-center randomized prospective studies are required to further validate the role of these techniques.

Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

This chapter about treatment for venous thromboembolic disease is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that the benefits do or do not outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 suggests that individual patient values may lead to different choices (for a full understanding of the grading, see "Grades of Recommendation" chapter). Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for patients with objectively confirmed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend anticoagulant therapy with subcutaneous (SC) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), monitored IV, or SC unfractionated heparin (UFH), unmonitored weight-based SC UFH, or SC fondaparinux (all Grade 1A). For patients with a high clinical suspicion of DVT or PE, we recommend treatment with anticoagulants while awaiting the outcome of diagnostic tests (Grade 1C). For patients with confirmed PE, we recommend early evaluation of the risks to benefits of thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1C); for those with hemodynamic compromise, we recommend short-course thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1B); and for those with nonmassive PE, we recommend against the use of thrombolytic therapy (Grade 1B). In acute DVT or PE, we recommend initial treatment with LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux for at least 5 days rather than a shorter period (Grade 1C); and initiation of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) together with LMWH, UFH, or fondaparinux on the first treatment day, and discontinuation of these heparin preparations when the international normalized ratio (INR) is > or = 2.0 for at least 24 h (Grade 1A). For patients with DVT or PE secondary to a transient (reversible) risk factor, we recommend treatment with a VKA for 3 months over treatment for shorter periods (Grade 1A). For patients with unprovoked DVT or PE, we recommend treatment with a VKA for at least 3 months (Grade 1A), and that all patients are then evaluated for the risks to benefits of indefinite therapy (Grade 1C). We recommend indefinite anticoagulant therapy for patients with a first unprovoked proximal DVT or PE and a low risk of bleeding when this is consistent with the patient's preference (Grade 1A), and for most patients with a second unprovoked DVT (Grade 1A). We recommend that the dose of VKA be adjusted to maintain a target INR of 2.5 (INR range, 2.0 to 3.0) for all treatment durations (Grade 1A). We recommend at least 3 months of treatment with LMWH for patients with VTE and cancer (Grade 1A), followed by treatment with LMWH or VKA as long as the cancer is active (Grade 1C). For prevention of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) after proximal DVT, we recommend use of an elastic compression stocking (Grade 1A). For DVT of the upper extremity, we recommend similar treatment as for DVT of the leg (Grade 1C). Selected patients with lower-extremity (Grade 2B) and upper-extremity (Grade 2C). DVT may be considered for thrombus removal, generally using catheter-based thrombolytic techniques. For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we recommend treatment with prophylactic or intermediate doses of LMWH or intermediate doses of UFH for 4 weeks (Grade 1B).