Single-center retrospective review of ultrasound-accelerated versus traditional catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis

被引:14
|
作者
Lu, Tony [1 ]
Loh, Thomas M. [1 ]
El-Sayed, Hosam F. [2 ]
Davies, Mark G. [3 ]
机构
[1] Houston Methodist Hosp, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vasc Ctr, Div Vasc & Endovasc Surg, 6550 Fannin St,Smith Tower,Suite 1401, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Dept Surg, Div Vasc Dis & Surg, Wexner Med Ctr, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr San Antonio, Dept Surg, Div Vasc & Endovasc Surg, San Antonio, TX 78229 USA
关键词
EKOS; CDT; thrombolysis; ultrasound; outcomes; DVT; CLINICAL-PRACTICE GUIDELINES; VEIN THROMBOSIS; OUTCOMES; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1177/1708538117702061
中图分类号
R6 [外科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100210 ;
摘要
Objective: Systemic anticoagulation remains the standard for acute lower extremity (LE) deep venous thrombosis (DVT), but growing interest in catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and its potential to reduce the incidence of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) has led to advent of ultrasound-accelerated CDT (US-CDT). Few studies to date have examined the outcomes of US-CDT against traditional CDT (T-CDT). Methods: This is a retrospective, single-center review of all patients treated for acute LE DVT over a five-year period with either US-and T-CDT. Patients were stratified based on demographics, presentation, co-morbidities, risk factors, and peri-procedural data. Results: Seventy-six limbs in 67 patients were treated; 51 limbs in 42 patients were treated with US-CDT, and 25 limbs in 25 patients were treated with T-CDT. Adjuncts include: pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (n = 28 vs. 20, p = 0.04), angioplasty (n = 22 vs. 18, p = 0.11), stenting (n = 30 vs. 6, p <= 0.001), and IVC filter insertion (n = 5 vs. 0, p = 0.07). Mean lysis times were 21 +/- 1.7 and 24 +/- 1.8 h for US-and T-CDT, respectively (p = 0.26). Thirty (25 ultrasound, 5 traditional) limbs had complete lysis. Thirty-one (22 ultrasound, 9 traditional) limbs had incomplete lysis. Fifteen (4 ultrasound, 11 traditional) limbs had ineffective lysis (p = 0.002 in favor of ultrasound). Four patients (3 US-CDT, 1 T-CDT) had recurrent ipsilateral thrombosis within 30 days (p = 0.60). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, there were no significant difference between primary patency, primary-assisted patency, secondary patency, re-thrombosis, and recurrent symptoms at 6, 12, and 24 months. Conclusion: US-CDT does not significantly improve mid-term patencies but results in greater acute clot burden reduction in patients with acute LE DVTs compared to T-CDT, which may be beneficial in reducing the long-term incidence of PTS.
引用
收藏
页码:525 / 532
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (USAT) versus standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of pulmonary embolism: A retrospective analysis
    Rothschild, Daniel P.
    Goldstein, James A.
    Ciacci, Joseph
    Bowers, Terry R.
    VASCULAR MEDICINE, 2019, 24 (03) : 234 - 240
  • [22] Catheter-directed thrombolysis in the treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis: a meta-analysis
    Zheng, J. J.
    Zhang, Z. H.
    Shan, Z.
    Wang, W. J.
    Li, X. X.
    Wang, S. M.
    Li, Y. -X.
    Cheng, G. -S.
    GENETICS AND MOLECULAR RESEARCH, 2014, 13 (03) : 5241 - 5249
  • [23] Catheter-directed thrombolysis with percutaneous rheolytic thrombectomy versus thrombolysis alone in upper and lower extremity deep vein thrombosis
    Kim, Hyun S.
    Patra, Ajanta
    Paxton, Ben E.
    Khan, Jawad
    Streiff, Michael B.
    CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2006, 29 (06) : 1003 - 1007
  • [24] Cost-effectiveness analysis of anticoagulation, percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy, and catheter-directed thrombolysis treatments for acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis
    Zou, Jun
    Ye, Qianling
    Zhao, Bin
    Hu, Chenming
    Li, Xiang
    Wu, Huaping
    MEDICINE, 2024, 103 (40)
  • [25] US-accelerated catheter-directed thrombolysis for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis
    Dumantepe, Mert
    Tarhan, Arif
    Yurdakul, Ilhan
    Ozler, Azmi
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2013, 19 (03) : 251 - 258
  • [26] A Retrospective Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Alone for Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis
    Vladimir Y. I. G. Tichelaar
    Ellen E. Brodin
    Anders Vik
    Trond Isaksen
    Finn Egil Skjeldestad
    Satish Kumar
    Nora C. Trasti
    Kulbir Singh
    John-Bjarne Hansen
    CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 2016, 39 : 1115 - 1121
  • [27] A Prospective Randomized Trial of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis With Additional Balloon Dilatation for Iliofemoral Deep Venous Thrombosis: A Single-Center Experience
    Zhang, Xiaoqin
    Ren, Qingshuai
    Jiang, Xuemei
    Sun, Jianming
    Gong, Jianping
    Tang, Bo
    Chen, Yikuan
    CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2014, 37 (04) : 958 - 968
  • [28] Comparison of Ultrasound-Accelerated versus Pigtail Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Acute Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism
    Graif, Assaf
    Grilli, Christopher J.
    Kimbiris, George
    Agriantonis, Demetrios J.
    Chohan, Omar Z.
    Fedele, Charles R.
    Gakhal, Mandip S.
    Vance, Ansar Z.
    Leung, Daniel A.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY, 2017, 28 (10) : 1339 - 1347
  • [29] Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis with Percutaneous Rheolytic Thrombectomy Versus Thrombolysis Alone in Upper and Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis
    Hyun S. Kim
    Ajanta Patra
    Ben E. Paxton
    Jawad Khan
    Michael B. Streiff
    CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, 2006, 29 : 1003 - 1007
  • [30] Analysis of the efficacy of angiojet percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy combined with catheter-directed thrombolysis versus catheter-directed thrombolysis alone in the treatment of subacute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis in elderly patients
    Cong, Luyi
    Huang, Lihua
    Fan, Benfang
    Hong, Xin
    Ma, Lingyu
    Huang, Tianan
    PHLEBOLOGY, 2025, 40 (02) : 88 - 94