Safety and Efficacy of Aspiration Thrombectomy or Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy after Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis

Histotripsy and Catheter-Directed Lytic: Efficacy in Highly Retracted Porcine Clots In Vitro

OBJECTIVE

Standard treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) involves catheter-directed anticoagulants or thrombolytics, but the chronic thrombi present in many DVT cases are often resistant to this therapy. Histotripsy has been found to be a promising adjuvant treatment, using the mechanical action of cavitating bubble clouds to enhance thrombolytic activity. The objective of this study was to determine if histotripsy enhanced recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) thrombolysis in highly retracted porcine clots in vitro in a flow model of occlusive DVT.

METHODS

Highly retracted porcine whole blood clots were treated for 1 h with either catheter-directed saline (negative control), rt-PA (lytic control), histotripsy, DEFINITY and histotripsy or the combination of rt-PA and histotripsy with or without DEFINITY. Five-cycle, 1.5 MHz histotripsy pulses with a peak negative pressure of 33.2 MPa and pulse repetition frequency of 40 Hz were applied along the clot. B-Mode and passive cavitation images were acquired during histotripsy insonation to monitor bubble activity.

RESULTS

Clots subjected to histotripsy with and without rt-PA exhibited greater thrombolytic efficacy than controls (7.0% flow recovery or lower), and histotripsy with rt-PA was more efficacious than histotripsy with saline (86.1 ± 10.2% compared with 61.7 ± 19.8% flow recovery). The addition of DEFINITY to histotripsy with or without rt-PA did not enhance either thrombolytic efficacy or cavitation dose. Cavitation dose generally did not correlate with thrombolytic efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Enhancement of thrombolytic efficacy was achieved using histotripsy, with and without catheter-directed rt-PA, in the presence of physiologic flow. This suggests these treatments may be effective as therapy for DVT.

Comparative outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus AngioJet pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis for treatment of acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of pharmacomechanical thrombolysis and thrombectomy (PCDT) plus catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) vs CDT alone for the treatment of acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and summarize the clinical experience, safety outcomes, and short- and long-term efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a 4-year retrospective, case-control study. A total of 95 consecutive patients with acute symptomatic iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with a symptom duration of ≤7 days involving the iliac and/or common femoral veins underwent endovascular interventions. The patients were divided into two groups according to their clinical indications: PCDT plus CDT vs CDT alone. Statistical analyses were used to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes between the two groups. Additionally, the patients were followed up for 3 to 36 months after treatment, and the proportions of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and moderate to severe PTS were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier survival method.

RESULTS

A total of 95 consecutive patients were analyzed in this retrospective study, of whom, 51 underwent CDT alone and 44 underwent PCDT plus CDT. Between the two groups, in terms of immediate-term efficacy and safety, significant differences were found in the catheter retention time (60.64 ± 12.04 hours vs 19.42 ± 4.04 hours; P < .001), dosages of urokinase required (5.82 ± 0.81 million units vs 1.80 ± 0.64 million units; P < .001), the detumescence rate at 24 hours postoperatively (48.46% ± 8.62% vs 76.79% ± 7.98%; P = .026), the descent velocity of D-dimer per day (2266.28 ± 1358.26 μg/L/D vs 3842.34 ± 2048.02 μg/L/D; P = .018), total hospitalization stay (6.2 ± 1.40 days vs 3.8 ± 0.70 days; P = .024), number of postoperative angiograms (2.4 ± 0.80 vs 1.2 ± 0.30; P = .042), and grade III venous patency (>95% lysis: 54.5% vs 68.6%; P = .047). Furthermore, during the follow-up period, significant differences were found in the incidence of PTS (Villalta scale ≥5 or a venous ulcer: 47.0% vs 27.7%; P = .037), and the incidence proportion of moderate to severe PTS at 12 months (15.7% vs 4.5%; P = .024) and 24 months (35.3% vs 11.4%; P = .016).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with CDT alone, in the iliofemoral DVT subgroup with a symptom duration of ≤7 days, PCDT plus CDT could significantly relieve early leg symptoms, shorten the hospitalization stay, reduce bleeding complications, promote long-term venous patency, and decrease the occurrence of PTS and the incidence proportion of moderate to severe PTS. Thus, the short- and long-term outcomes both support the superiority of PCDT plus CDT vs CDT in this subgroup.

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute and Subacute Blocked Arteries and Veins in the Lower Limbs: A Health Technology Assessment

Background

A blockage to the blood vessels in the lower extremities may cause pain and discomfort. If left unmanaged, it may lead to amputation or chronic disability, such as in the form of post-thrombotic syndrome. We conducted a health technology assessment of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) devices, which are proposed to remove a blood clot, which may form in the arteries or veins of the lower legs. This evaluation considered blockages in the veins and arteries separately, and included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding MT for lower limb blockages, patient preferences and values, and clinical and health system stakeholders' perspectives.

Method

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials or the risk of bias among non-randomized studies (RoBANS) tool for nonrandomized studies, and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search. We did not conduct a primary economic evaluation since the clinical evidence is highly uncertain. We also analyzed the budget impact of publicly funding MT treatment for inpatients with arterial acute limb ischemia and acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the lower limb in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of MT, we spoke with people with acute DVT. To understand the barriers and facilitators of accessing MT, we surveyed clinical and health system stakeholders to gain their perspectives.

Results

We included 40 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 37 observational studies) in the clinical evidence review. For patients who experience arterial acute limb ischemia, compared with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) alone, MT has greater technical success and patency and reduced hospital length of stay, but the evidence for these outcomes is uncertain (GRADE: Very low). Mechanical thrombectomy may reduce the volume of thrombolytic medication required and CDT infusion time (a determinant for intensive care unit [ICU] need) in patients experiencing acute DVT, but it is uncertain if this is to a meaningful degree (GRADE: Moderate to Very low). It may also reduce the proportion of people who experience post-thrombotic syndrome and overall hospital length of stay, but it is uncertain (GRADE: Very low).We estimated that publicly funding MT for people with arterial acute limb ischemia in Ontario would lead to an annual cost savings of $0.17 million in year 1 to $0.14 million in year 5, for a total savings of $0.83 million over 5 years. This cost savings was mainly attributed to reduced ICU stays among people who received MT, but the results had considerable uncertainty. For the population with acute DVT, publicly funding MT would lead to an additional cost of $0.77 million in year 1 to $1.44 million in year 5, for a total additional cost of $5.5 million over 5 years.The people with acute DVT with whom we spoke reported that MT was generally seen as a positive option, and those who had undergone the procedure reported positively on its value as a treatment to quickly remove a clot. Accessing treatment for DVT could be a barrier, especially in more remote areas of Ontario.Clinicians using the technology advised that facilitators to accessing the technology included perceived improvements in patient outcomes, resourcing requirements, addressing unmet needs, and avoidance of ICU stay. The main barrier identified was cost. Clinicians who were not using the technology advised that barriers were low case-use volume, along with costs for the equipment and for health human resources.

Conclusions

Mechanical thrombectomy may have greater technical success and patency and reduce hospital length of stay for patients experiencing an arterial acute limb ischemia and, for patients with an acute DVT, it may reduce CDT volume and infusion time, the proportion of people who experience post-thrombotic syndrome, and hospital length of stay. Mechanical thrombectomy may reduce the associated ICU costs, but it has higher equipment costs compared with usual care. Publicly funding MT in Ontario for populations with arterial acute limb ischemia may not lead to a substantial budget increase to the province. Publicly funding MT for acute DVT would lead to an additional cost of $5.5 million over 5 years. For people with acute DVT, MT was seen as a potential positive treatment option to remove the clot quickly. Overall, the majority of clinical stakeholders we engaged with (including both those with and without experience with MT) were supportive of the use of the technology.

Percutaneous Mechanical Thrombectomy of Submassive Pulmonary Embolism and Extensive Deep Venous Thrombosis for Early Thrombus Removal

Traditional treatment with anticoagulation in nonfatal submassive pulmonary embolism can result in serious sequelae of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension or poor exercise tolerance, and functional impairment. To prevent long-term complications in previously healthy young patients, other treatment options to actively resolve existing thrombi should be considered. Despite recommendations for use in only severe clinical presentations, endovascular interventional techniques could serve as suitable treatment options for such patients. Here we report the case of a previously healthy 23-year-old female with submassive pulmonary embolism and extensive deep vein thrombosis in the inferior vena cava down to the right popliteal vein. The patient was initially treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis. However, she continued to show extensive venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Percutaneous thrombectomy and aspiration using an AngioJet successfully removed the main pulmonary artery embolism and venous thrombus. The patient's recovery was uneventful, and 3-month follow-up showed no signs of recurrence or discomfort.