Original approach for thrombolytic therapy in patients with Ilio-femoral deep vein thrombosis : 2 years follow-up

Comparative Study of Two Different Access Points, One Tibial Vein and the Popliteal Vein, for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Treatment of Acute Mixed Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Although the popliteal vein approach is commonly used for catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) treatment in patients with acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), CDT via a new access route, the posterior tibial vein, is also used and has demonstrated good results. However, this tibial approach has not been tested in large samples. In this article, we compare the early efficacy of CDT using the tibial and popliteal vein approaches for the treatment of acute mixed lower extremity DVT.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, 87 patients with acute mixed lower extremity DVT treated at the Department of Interventional Medicine of Zhuhai People's Hospital were enrolled; those with tibial vein access and popliteal vein access were included in the observation (n = 55) and control (n = 32) groups, respectively. The safety and efficacy of CDT via tibial vein access were investigated by collecting and comparing indicators such as venous patency, thrombus removal effect, thigh and calf circumference difference, swelling reduction rate of the affected limb, surgical complications, and postdischarge complication rate of the patients in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The postoperative thrombus clearance effect of the observation group was significantly better than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the postoperative venous patency rate of the observation group was 83.2 ± 15.7%, which was higher than that of the control group (62.2 ± 38.2%) (P = 0.005). The swelling reduction rate of the lower extremity was 74.0 ± 33.8% in the observation group and 51.4 ± 30.0% in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.002). However, there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in the rates of thigh swelling reduction, bleeding-related complications, or postoperative complications between the 2 groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CDT via the tibial vein approach is safe, effective, and may be a better approach for CDT access, offering superior thrombus clearance, venous patency, and lower extremity swelling reduction postoperatively.

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.

Feasibility of low-dose infusion of alteplase for unsuccessful thrombolysis with urokinase in deep venous thrombosis

The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the rescue of thrombolysis with the recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) alteplase was an effective and safe therapeutic option in patients who did not respond to urokinase. Between February 2016 and February 2017, 26 patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) underwent rescue thrombolysis with alteplase. Unsuccessful thrombolysis with urokinase was defined as a lack of improvement in the degree of thrombotic removal with a lysis rate <50% under one of the following three conditions: Two consecutive venography procedures, administration of >3 million units of total urokinase, or >7 days infusion duration. The thrombus score, lysis rate and post-thrombolysis safety of alteplase, following unsuccessful urokinase thrombolysis were all evaluated. At the end of the unsuccessful urokinase thrombolytic therapy, the mean duration of the perfusion was 6.09±1.60 days, and the mean total dose was (362.5±90.0) ×10⁴ units. No significant difference was detected in the total thrombus score before (7.85±2.40) and at the completion (6.19±2.33) of urokinase thrombolysis (P>0.05). The mean duration of perfusion was 3.36±1.69 days, and the mean total infusion dose was 44.8±22.6 mg for the rescue thrombolysis with alteplase. The mean thrombus score decreased to 1.19±2.10 at the completion of rescue thrombolysis. The alteplase post-thrombolysis scores were significantly decreased compared with those of urokinase thrombolysis (P<0.05). There were 23 (88.5%) patients who achieved a successful lysis rate (grade II/III) following rescue thrombolysis with alteplase, and symptoms of swelling and pain in the affected limbs were significantly improved. Successful thrombolysis rates in patients in the acute (<14 days) and subacute (14-28 days) phases were high (93.3 and 81.8%, respectively; P>0.05). No symptomatic pulmonary embolism or major bleeding occurred during rescue thrombolysis, but minor bleeding complications occurred in 4 cases (15.4%). In conclusion, rescue thrombolysis with alteplase led to an effective and safe outcome in patients with DVT who did not respond to initial thrombolysis with urokinase, and may be a valid and easy alternative treatment option.

Endovascular and Open Surgery for Deep Vein Thrombosis

The surgical treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) has significantly evolved and is focused on different strategies of early thrombus removal in the acute phase and deep venous recanalization or bypass in the chronic phase. Along with the use of anticoagulation agents, endovascular techniques based on catheter-directed thrombolysis and pharmacomechanical thrombectomy have been increasingly used in patients with acute extensive DVT. Patient selection is crucial to provide optimal outcomes and minimize complications.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis for patients with acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis: a meta-analysis

Objectives:

To evaluate case series studies that quantitatively assess the effects of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and compare the efficacy of CDT and anticoagulation in patients with acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

Methods:

Relevant databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus, were searched through January 2017. The inclusion criteria were applied to select patients with acute lower extremity DVT treated with CDT or with anticoagulation. In the case series studies, the pooled estimates of efficacy outcomes for patency rate, complete lysis, rethrombosis and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) were calculated across the studies. In studies comparing CDT with anticoagulation, summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated.

Results:

Twenty-five articles (six comparing CDT with anticoagulation and 19 case series) including 2254 patients met the eligibility criteria. In the case series studies, the pooled results were a patency rate of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.89), complete lysis 0.58 (95% CI: 0.40-0.75), rethrombosis 0.11 (95% CI: 0.06-0.17) and PTS 0.10 (95% CI: 0.08-0.12). Six studies comparing the efficacy outcomes of CDT and anticoagulation showed that CDT was associated with a reduction of PTS (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.26-0.55, p<0.0001) and a higher patency rate (OR 4.76, 95%CI 2.14-10.56, p<0.0001).

Conclusion:

Acute lower extremity DVT patients receiving CDT were found to have a lower incidence of PTS and a higher incidence of patency rate. In our meta-analysis, CDT is shown to be an effective treatment for acute lower extremity DVT patients.

A systematic review on the use of deep venous stenting for acute venous thrombosis of the lower limb

OBJECTIVES

The aim is to evaluate venous stent patency, the development of post-thrombotic syndrome, recurrence, quality of life and the optimal post-procedural anticoagulation regimen in the treatment of iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis.

METHOD AND RESULTS

EMBASE and Medline databases were interrogated to identify studies in which acute deep venous thrombosis patients were stented. Twenty-seven studies and 542 patients were identified. Primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates 12 months after stent placement ranged from 74 to 95, 90 to 95 and 84 to 100%, respectively. The observed post-thrombotic syndrome rate was 14.6%. The incidence of stent re-thrombosis was 8%. In 26% of studies, patients received additional antiplatelet therapy. Quality of life questionnaires employed in 11% of studies, demonstrating an improvement in the chronic venous insufficiency questionnaire (22.67 ± 3.01 versus 39.34 ± 6.66).

CONCLUSION

Venous stenting appears to be an effective adjunct to early thrombus removal; however, further studies are needed to identify optimal anticoagulant regimen and effect on quality of life.

Safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis for the treatment of acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite established guidelines, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for the management of acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) should not be overstated because the risks of CDT are uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively and quantitatively evaluate the safety of CDT for patients with acute lower extremity DVT.

METHODS

Relevant databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE, and Scopus, were searched up to January 2017. The inclusion criteria were applied to select patients with acute lower extremity DVT treated by CDT or compared CDT with anticoagulation. In case series studies, the pooled estimates of safety outcomes for complications, pulmonary embolism (PE), and mortality were calculated across studies. In studies comparing CDT with anticoagulation, summary odds ratios (ORs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 1696 citations identified, 24 studies (6 comparing CDT with anticoagulation and 18 case series) including 9157 patients met the eligibility criteria. In the case series studies, the pooled risks of major, minor, and total complications were 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.02-0.04), 0.07 (95% CI: 0.05-0.08), and 0.09 (95% CI: 0.08-0.11), respectively; other pooled risk results were 0.00 for PE (95% CI: 0.00-0.01) and 0.07 for mortality (95% CI: 0.03-0.11). Our meta-analysis of 6 studies comparing the risk of complications and PE related to CDT with those related to anticoagulation showed that CDT was associated with an increased risk of complications (OR = 4.36; 95% CI: 2.94-6.47) and PE (OR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.37-1.79).

CONCLUSION

Acute lower extremity DVT patients receiving CDT are associated with a low risk of complications. However, compared with anticoagulation, CDT is associated with a higher risk of complications and PE. Rare mortality related to thrombolytic therapy was reported. More evidence should be accumulated to prove the safety of CDT.

CD163 macrophage and erythrocyte contents in aspirated deep vein thrombus are associated with the time after onset: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Thrombolytic therapy is effective in selected patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Therefore, identification of a marker that reflects the age of thrombus is of particular concern. This pilot study aimed to identify a marker that reflects the time after onset in human aspirated DVT.

METHODS

We histologically and immunohistochemically analyzed 16 aspirated thrombi. The times from onset to aspiration ranged from 5 to 60 days (median of 13 days). Paraffin sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and antibodies for fibrin, glycophorin A, integrin α2bβ3, macrophage markers (CD68, CD163, and CD206), CD34, and smooth muscle actin (SMA).

RESULTS

All thrombi were immunopositive for glycophorin A, fibrin, integrin α2bβ3, CD68, CD163, and CD206, and contained granulocytes. Almost all of the thrombi had small foci of CD34- or SMA-immunopositive areas. CD68- and CD163-immunopositive cell numbers were positively correlated with the time after onset, while the glycophorin A-immunopositive area was negatively correlated with the time after onset. In double immunohistochemistry, CD163-positive cells existed predominantly among the CD68-immunopositive macrophage population. CD163-positive macrophages were closely localized with glycophorin A, CD34, or SMA-positive cell-rich areas.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that CD163 macrophage and erythrocyte contents could be markers for evaluation of the age of thrombus in DVT. Additionally, CD163 macrophages might play a role in organization of the process of venous thrombus.