Catheter-directed thrombolysis versus percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy in the management of acute limb ischemia: a single center review

BackgroundAcute limb ischemia is associated with significant mortality and amputation rate. Early restoration of flow can be obtained by various treatment methods that include catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT). These treatments have been shown to be effective but associated with various complications. There is lack of data comparing these two treatments. We aim to review our experience in the treatment of acute limb ischemia (ALI) and compare CDT with PMT.ResultsA total of 94 patients [mean age 65years, 67% male (n =63)] presented with ALI between 2006 and 2015 and were treated with either CDT or PMT. Outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success; secondary outcomes were amputation rate at 30days, duration of hospitalization and 30-day mortality. A total of 117 procedures were performed in 94 patients: 27 surgical bypass grafts, 31 previously stented arteries and 59 native vessels. Twenty eight procedures (24%) were performed with PMT, and 89 (76%) procedures were performed with CDT. Higher technical success was achieved in the PMT group (68%, 19/28) compared to the CDT group (47%, 42/89), p =0.056. Clinical success was similar in both groups (75%, 21/28 in the PMT group and 73%, 65/89) in the CDT group (p =0.837). There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the PMT vs CDT groups (4% vs 8%, p =0.425). The length of post-procedural hospital stay was shorter in patients with PMT (6.0 vs 12.6days, p =0.001). The absence of end-stage renal failure appears to be a predictor for clinical succes (HR 3.3, 95% CI 0.809-13.592).ConclusionPMT is associated with higher technical success and significantly shorter length of stay compared to CDT; however, clinical success is similar across both treatment entities. The safety profile is comparable.