Endovascular management of acute upper extremity deep venous thrombosis and the use of superior vena cava filters

Results of a Flexible Patient-Centered Approach to the Timing of Thoracic Outlet Decompression in Paget Schroetter Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Treatment algorithms for subclavian vein (SCV) effort thrombosis (Paget-Schroetter syndrome- PSS) are multiple, ranging from thrombolysis (TL) with immediate or delayed thoracic outlet decompression (TOD) to conservative treatment with anticoagulation alone. We follow a regimen of TL/pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (PMT) followed by TOD with first rib resection, scalenectomy, venolysis, and selective venoplasty (open or endovascular) performed electively at a time convenient for the patient. Oral anticoagulants are prescribed for 3 months or longer based upon response. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of this flexible protocol.

METHODS

Clinical and procedural details of consecutive patients treated for PSS from January 2001 to August 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Endpoints included success of TL and eventual clinical outcome. Patients were divided into 2 groups-Group I: TL/PMT + TOD; Group II: medical management/anticoagulation + TOD.

RESULTS

PSS was diagnosed in 114 patients; 104 (62 female, mean age 31 years) who underwent TOD were included in the study. Group I: 53 patients underwent TOD after initial TL/PMT (23 at our institution and 30 elsewhere) with success (acute thrombus resolution) in 80% (n = 20) and 72% (n = 24) respectively. Adjunctive balloon-catheter venoplasty was performed in 67%. TL failed to recanalize the occluded SCV in 11% (n = 6). Complete thrombus resolution was seen in 9% (n = 5). Residual chronic thrombus in 79% (n = 42) resulted in median SCV stenosis of 50% (range 10% to 80%). With continued anticoagulation, further thrombus retraction was noted with median 40% improvement in stenosis including in veins with unsuccessful TL. TOD was performed at a median of 1.5 months (range 2-8 months). Rethrombosis of the SCV occurred in 3 patients 1-3 days postoperatively and was managed with MT/SCV stenting/balloon angioplasty and anticoagulation. Symptomatic relief was achieved in 49/53 (92%) patients at a median follow-up of 14 months. Group II: 51 patients underwent TOD following medical treatment elsewhere with anticoagulation alone for an average 6 months (range 2-18 months) with recurrent SCV thrombosis in 5 (11%). Thirty-nine patients (76%) had persistent symptoms; the remaining had asymptomatic compression of the SCV with maneuvers. SCV occlusion persisted in 4 patients (7%); the indication for TOD being residual symptoms from compression of collateral veins, the median residual stenosis was 70% (range 30-90%). TOD was performed at a median of 6 months after diagnosis of PSS. Open venous reconstruction with endovenectomy and patch was performed in 4 patients and stenting in 2. Symptomatic relief was achieved in 46/51 (90%) at a median follow-up of 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

For Paget Schroetter syndrome a management protocol encompassing elective thoracic outlet decompression at a convenient time following thrombolysis is safe and effective, with low risk of rethrombosis. Continued anticoagulation in the interim results in further recanalization of the subclavian vein and may reduce the need for open venous reconstruction.

Applications of Vascular Imaging and Interventional Radiology Modalities in the Upper Extremity: A Review

Hand and upper extremity (HUE) vascular disorders are encountered frequently by hand surgeons in clinical practice. A wide array of imaging and vascular interventional radiology modalities exists for the diagnosis and treatment of HUE vascular disorders, some of which may not be familiar to the HUE surgeons. In this review article, we summarize the vascular imaging and vascular interventional radiology modalities and their relative advantages, disadvantages, and indications with respect to HUE pathology. We aim to familiarize HUE surgeons with the available types of diagnostic and therapeutic options for HUE vascular pathologies and aid interdisciplinary communication with vascular interventional radiology specialists during the clinical decision-making process.

Platelet/Lymphocyte Ratio Predicted Long-Term Prognosis for Acute Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis from a Retrospective Study

Background

In this study, we aimed to determine the mortality risk factors and whether placement of a vena cava filter improves the prognosis of acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT).

Methods

Clinical data and follow-up results were retrospectively analyzed. Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify the risk factors associated with all-cause mortality in all patients and subgroups of patients. Results are expressed as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) were used to determine the optimal cut-off value. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed and compared by the Log rank test.

Results

The study cohort comprised 109 patients of median age 56 years (47.5, 64.5). The median follow-up time was 25 months (8, 47): 39 patients (35.8%) had died by 12 months, 55 (50.5%) by 36 months, and 60 (55%) by the end of follow-up. Presence of malignancy (HR: 5.882, 95% CI: 2.128-16.667), D-dimer (HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.09-1.94), platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR; HR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.15-3.54), and the systemic immune/inflammatory index (SII; HR: 1.471, 95% CI: 1.062-1.991) were identified as independent risk factors for mortality. Subgroup analysis of patients with malignancy determined gender (HR: 2.936, 95% CI: 1.599-5.393) and PLR (HR: 1.427,95% CI: 1.023-1.989) as independent risk factors. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the mortality rate was much higher in patients with malignancy, high D-dimer (≥ 0.92ug/mL), high PLR (≥ 291) and high SII (≥ 1487). However, there was no significant difference between patients with and without vena cava filters.

Conclusion

In this study, we identified PLR as an new independent predictor of mortality in patients with acute UEDVT. Emergency placement of a vena cava filter did not improve long-term prognosis.

Superior vena cava filter placement over existing central venous lines: Is line removal necessary?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the technical feasibility and clinical safety of superior vena cava (SVC) filter placement over preexisting central venous lines (CVLs) in 23 patients who had upper extremity deep venous thrombosis with contraindications to anticoagulation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the images and electronic medical records of 23 patients from 2008 to 2018 with SVC filters placed over an existing central venous line was performed in a single tertiary medical center. Twenty-one filters were placed over smaller lines (<8 Fr), and two were placed over hemodialysis catheters. Venograms before and after filter placement were compared to detect any evidence of line displacement or entrapment. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether there was any difficulty during line removal.

RESULTS

In two of five patients with dual lines, significant line displacement was noted in the left-sided lines, both lines were later removed without complications. In one patient with a hemodialysis catheter, the filter was deployed over the tip of the catheter resulting in the entrapment of one of the legs of the filter within a side hole of the line. Fourteen patients had their lines later removed 3 days to 3 months after filter placement without reported problems. Nine patients had their CVLs left in place until the patient's death or discharge to a long-term facility.

CONCLUSIONS

SVC filter placement over preexisting CVLs seems to be technically feasible and clinically safe in patients with <8-Fr CVLs. However, placement of the filters over hemodialysis catheters can result in leg entrapment.

Thrombolysis for acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

About 5% to 10% of all deep vein thromboses occur in the upper extremities. Serious complications of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, such as post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, may in theory be avoided using thrombolysis. No systematic review has assessed the effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (29 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and three trial registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISRCTN registry) for ongoing and unpublished studies. We additionally searched the registries of the European Medical Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration (December 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of publication type, publication date and language that investigated the effects of thrombolytics added to anticoagulation, thrombolysis versus anticoagulation, or thrombolysis versus any other type of medical intervention for the treatment of acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all records to identify those that met inclusion criteria. We planned to use the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We planned to use trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias) in the trials. We planned to conduct trial sequential analyses to control for the risk of random errors and to assess the robustness of our conclusions. We planned to consider a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were severe bleeding, pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no trials eligible for inclusion. We also identified no ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence from which to draw conclusion on the benefits or harms of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis as an add-on therapy to anticoagulation, alone compared with anticoagulation, or alone compared with any other type of medical intervention. Large randomised clinical trials with a low risk of bias are warranted. They should focus on clinical outcomes and not solely on surrogate measures.

Interventional Therapy for Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Approximately 10% of all deep vein thromboses occur in the upper extremity, and that number is increasing due to the use of peripherally inserted central catheters. Sequelae of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) are similar to those for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT) and include postthrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism. In addition to systemic anticoagulation, there are multiple interventional treatment options for UEDVT with the potential to reduce the incidence of these sequelae. To date, there have been no randomized trials to define the optimal management strategy for patients presenting with UEDVT, so many conclusions are drawn from smaller, single-center studies or from LEDVT research. In this article, the authors describe the evidence for the currently available treatment options and an approach to a patient with acute UEDVT.

When deep vein thrombosis occurs in the upper limb

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis is a relatively rare condition which has thus far not attracted much interest in the literature. The differences in its aetiopathology, different diagnostic modalities and the current standard of care are discussed in this article.

Endovascular thrombolysis to salvage central venous access in children with catheter-associated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: technique and initial results

Nine patients (average age 8.3 years, range 20 days to 17 years; average weight 31 kg, range 2.7-79 kg) with catheter-associated UE-DVT underwent upper extremity venous thrombolysis with the goal of access salvage. Catheter directed therapy with alteplase (tPA), balloon angioplasty, and mechanical thrombectomy was used in all cases. The mean total dose of TPA was 15 mg (range 1-40 mg). Venous access was ultimately preserved in all patients. No stents or superior vena cava filters were used. There was one episode of symptomatic clinically suspected pulmonary embolism managed by systemic tPA and heparin without long term sequaele. Mean imaging and clinical follow-up was 351 ± 208 and 613 ± 498 days respectively. Endovenous thrombolysis for catheter-associated upper-extremity DVT in children may be safe and effective and could be considered particularly in patients in whom long-term venous access is needed.

Paget-Schroetter syndrome: A review and Algorithm (WASPS-IR)

Venous compression syndromes are rare and occur due to the entrapment of vein(s) in confined anatomical spaces bounded by osseous and non-osseous structures. Here we present a review of Paget-Schroetter Syndrome, an important cause of upper extremity of deep vein thrombosis, its associated clinical and radiological findings as well as treatment options.