Article

Temporary Vena Caval Interruption and Thrombolysis in the Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis.

Pulmonary Division, LDS Hospital,Eighth Avenue and C Street, Salt Lake City,UT 84143,USA. .
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine 07/2005; 7(2):149-158. DOI: 10.1007/s11936-005-0016-0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Temporary interruption of the inferior vena cava (IVC) with a retrievable filter should be considered in patients with objectively verified proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the legs who have a temporary contraindication to therapeutic anticoagulation, or in patients who experience severe complications from anticoagulation. The risk of the temporary filter being left in place permanently must be considered. Use of a retrievable filter in conjunction with therapeutic anticoagulation during the early phase of therapy for acute DVT in patients whose cardiopulmonary reserve is limited (ie, those with pre-existing pulmonary hypertension) may be a future indication for this intervention. Interruption of the superior vena cava with a retrievable filter has been performed in a small number of cases, but there are insufficient data to guide risk:benefit analysis for this procedure. Thrombolysis, either systemic or local, results in a higher rate of thrombus resolution than anticoagulation alone. However, the long-term benefit of thrombolysis in preventing or improving the post-thrombotic syndrome remains unproven. Due to the substantial risk and cost of thrombolytic therapy, it should not be performed in the routine treatment of DVT. Thrombolytic therapy, in the absence of contraindication, should be considered in highly symptomatic, massive iliofemoral DVT. Catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy has shown promise in case series, but its role remains to be elucidated in randomized trials.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
42 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There are few population-based data regarding the effectiveness of inferior vena cava filter use in the prevention of symptomatic pulmonary embolism. To determine the 1-year cumulative incidence of rehospitalization for venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism among patients with thromboembolism treated with a vena cava filter compared with the incidence in a control population with thromboembolism. Population-based retrospective analysis of linked hospital discharge abstracts in California. From January 1, 1991, through December 30, 1995, 3632 patients were treated with a filter and 64,333 controls were admitted with a principal diagnosis of venous thromboembolism. Filter-treated patients had significantly greater comorbidity, with a higher frequency of previous pulmonary embolism, recent major bleeding, malignant neoplasm, and stroke. Patients who initially manifested pulmonary embolism were significantly more likely to be rehospitalized for pulmonary embolism than patients with an initial diagnosis of venous thrombosis alone, among filter-treated patients (relative risk, 6.72; 95% confidence interval, 3.61-12.49) and controls (relative risk, 5.30; 95% confidence interval, 4.61-6.10). Risk-adjusted proportional hazards modeling showed no significant difference between filter-treated patients and controls in the relative hazard of rehospitalization for pulmonary embolism. However, filter placement was associated with a significantly higher relative hazard of rehospitalization for venous thrombosis among patients who initially manifested pulmonary embolism (relative hazard, 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-3.29), but not among those who presented with venous thrombosis (relative hazard, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.43). Insertion of a vena cava filter was not associated with a significant reduction in the 1-year incidence of rehospitalization for pulmonary embolism. Use of a filter was associated with a higher incidence of rehospitalization for venous thrombosis, but only among patients who initially manifested pulmonary embolism. A prospective clinical study is needed to determine the efficacy of filter use among patients with pulmonary embolism who do not meet strict guidelines for insertion of a vena cava filter.
    Archives of Internal Medicine 08/2000; 160(13):2033-41. · 11.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The efficacy and safety of vena caval filters in the prevention of pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis is still a matter of debate. Using a two-by-two factorial design, we randomly assigned 400 patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis who were at risk for pulmonary embolism to receive a vena caval filter (200 patients) or no filter (200 patients), and to receive low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin, 195 patients) or unfractionated heparin (205 patients). The rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism, death, and major bleeding were analyzed at day 12 and at two years. At day 12, two patients assigned to receive filters (1.1 percent), as compared with nine patients assigned to receive no filters (4.8 percent), had had symptomatic or asymptomatic pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 0.22; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.90). At two years, 37 patients assigned to the filter group (20.8 percent), as compared with 21 patients assigned to the no-filter group (11.6 percent), had had recurrent deep-vein thrombosis (odds ratio, 1.87; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.20). There were no significant differences in mortality or the other outcomes. At day 12, three patients assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (1.6 percent), as compared with eight patients assigned to unfractionated heparin (4.2 percent), had had symptomatic or asymptomatic pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 0.38; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.10 to 1.38). In high-risk patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis, the initial beneficial effect of vena caval filters for the prevention of pulmonary embolism was counterbalanced by an excess of recurrent deep-vein thrombosis, without any difference in mortality. Our data also confirmed that low-molecular-weight heparin was as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for the prevention of pulmonary embolism.
    New England Journal of Medicine 03/1998; 338(7):409-15. · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since no previous randomized comparison has been carried out between ultra-high and conventional dosage streptokinase therapy of fresh venous thromboses, the NBVL trial was carried out as a prospective, randomized, multicentre, phlebographically monitored comparison of the results and adverse effects of these two fibrinolytic treatment options. Using the normal exclusion criteria, 156 patients with a leg-pelvis venous thrombosis presumed to be a maximum of 14 days old were treated with 1.5 million U streptokinase/h for 6h daily (n = 77, group A) or conventional dosage with 100,000 U streptokinase per hour (n = 79, group B). There were 15 patients (eight in group A, seven in group B) who had to stop therapy prematurely, and eight patients (five in group A, three in group B) could not be evaluated because of incorrect monitoring times. The phlebograms were evaluated using IFP-C scores. These showed a reduction in the IFP score from 4.55 to 2.2 in the 64 patients in group A after a mean of 2.7 +/- 0.6 therapy cycles with administration of 24.4 +/- 5.7 million U streptokinase, i.e. 47% of the baseline value. The 69 patients in group B had a reduction in score from 4.2 to 2.93 after a mean of 3.7 +/- 1.2 days of treatment with administration of 8.6 +/- 3.3 million units, i.e. a fall of 30% in the baseline values (p = 0.007). There were 132 out of 281 completely occluded venous segments in group A (47%) and 81 out of 279 segments in group B (29%) that showed complete patency. Eight out of 27 three-segment occlusions in group A and only one of 26 in group B showed complete patency. The IFP score improved by 55% in the 45 men in group A, compared with only 30% in the 47 men in group B (p = 0.002). When both dosages are combined, men showed a greater improvement in IFP score than women (42 versus 29%; p = 0.02). The IFP score improved more in the 20 patients aged more than 60 years in group A than in the 19 patients aged over 60 years of age in group B (61 versus 20%; p = 0.003). No other significant differences in effect were seen on analysis of sub-groups and individual factors (sex, age, presumed age of thrombus and side of thrombosis). In the 77 patients in group A, haemorrhagic complications were less frequent than in the 79 patients in group B (22.1 versus 36.7%; p = 0.054), especially concerning urogenital haemorrhage (6.5 versus 22.8%; p = 0.004). Women were affected more frequently by haemorrhagic complications than men (35.2 versus 26.5%), and the 19 patients aged more than 65 years old were affected more than the 137 younger patients (21.1 versus 13.9%). There were no deaths, and clinically insignificant pulmonary emboli occurred three times. Ultra-high dosage streptokinase shows better and more rapid thrombolytic treatment for popliteal-femoral-iliac venous thromboses and causes fewer haemorrhagic complications than conventional dosage streptokinase. The better effect of ultra-high dosage can be observed particularly for three-segment occlusion as well as in male patients. In older patients, accurate diagnosis is required because of the higher rate of haemorrhagic complications.
    Vascular Medicine 02/1998; 3(2):87-94. · 1.62 Impact Factor