Long-term results of additional thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute deep vein thrombosis treated with pharmacomechanical thromboaspiration: A comparative study

Combined pharmacomechanical thrombectomy with selective catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the characteristics and the outcomes of combined percutaneous pharmacomechanical thrombectomy with selective catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis.

Methods

Between March 2018 and February 2020, a total of 37 patients (21 males, 16 females; mean age: 55±13.8 years; range, 21 to 79 years) with symptomatic acute iliofemoral vein thrombosis who underwent combined percutaneous pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received a three-step therapy: (i) insertion of a temporary inferior vena cava filter, (ii) percutaneous pharmacomechanical thrombectomy via rotational mechanical thrombectomy device with an adjuvant 0.15 mg/kg recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator alteplase, and (iii) catheter-directed thrombolysis with continuous 1 mg/h tissue-type plasminogen activator alteplase. Data including demographic characteristics of the patients, bleeding complications, technical success, and adjuvant angioplasty rates were analyzed. The Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate freedom from re-thrombosis at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up was calculated.

Results

The majority of the patients had left-sided (n=22, 59.4%) proximal deep vein thrombosis. Successful insertion of the inferior vena cava filter was achieved in 97.2% (n=36) of patients. The technical success rate was 89.1% (n=33). Adjuvant venous angioplasty was performed in four patients (10.8%) and no venous stents were used. No major bleeding was occurred, while minor bleeding was observed mostly in the form of hematuria (n=12, 32.4%). No mortality was observed. The 3, 6, and 12-month freedom from re-thrombosis rates were 96.3%, 92.6%, and 86.0%, respectively.

Conclusion

Combined percutaneous pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis seems to be an effective and safe treatment of the iliofemoral acute deep vein thrombosis with acceptable minor bleeding complications post-interventionally.

A risk score for iliofemoral patients with deep vein thrombosis

OBJECTIVE

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common condition with a high risk of post-thrombotic morbidity, especially in patients with a proximal thrombus. Successful iliofemoral clot removal has been shown to decrease the severity of post-thrombotic syndrome. It is assumed that earlier thrombus lysis is associated with a better outcome. Generally, the earlier IFDVT is confirmed, the earlier thrombus lysis could be performed. d-Dimer levels and Wells score are currently used to assess the preduplex probability for DVT; however, some studies indicate that the d-dimer value varies depending on the thrombus extent and localization. Using d-dimer and other risk factors might facilitate development of a model selecting those with an increased risk of IFDVT that might benefit from early referral for additional analysis and adjunctive iliofemoral thrombectomy.

METHODS

All consecutive adult patients from a retrospective cohort of STAR diagnostic center (primary care) in Rotterdam suspected of having DVT between September 2004 and August 2016 were assessed for this retrospective study. The diagnostic workup for DVT including Wells score and d-dimer were performed as well as complete duplex ultrasound examination. Patients with objective evidence of DVT were categorized according to thrombus localization using the Lower Extremity Thrombolysis classification. Logistic regression analysis was done for a model predicting IFDVT. The cut-off value of the model was determined using a receiver operating characteristic curve.

RESULTS

A total of 3381 patients were eligible for study recruitment, of whom 489 (14.5%) had confirmed DVT. We developed a multivariate model (sensitivity of 77% and specificity of 82%; area under the curve, 0.90; 0.86-0.93) based on d-dimer, Wells score, age, and anticoagulation use, which is able to distinguish IFDVT patients from all patients suspected of DVT.

CONCLUSIONS

This multivariate model adequately distinguishes IFDVT among all suspected DVT patients. Practically, this model could give each patient a preduplex risk score, which could be used to prioritize suspected IFDVT patients for an immediate imaging test to confirm or exclude IFDVT. Further validation studies are needed to confirm potential of this prediction model for IFDVT.