Article

Preservation of venous valve function after catheter-directed and systemic thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis.

Division of Emergency Care, Department of Medicine, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Haartmaninkatu 4, PL 340, 00029 HUS, Helsinki, Finland.
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.82). 11/2004; 28(4):391-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2004.06.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to assess venous reflux and the obstruction pattern after catheter-directed and systemic thrombolysis of deep iliofemoral venous thrombosis.
Thirty-two patients treated either with systemic (16) or catheter-directed local thrombolysis (16) for massive iliofemoral thrombosis were identified from the hospital registry.
Clinical evaluation at follow up was based on the CEAP classification and disability score. Reflux was assessed by colour duplex ultrasonography and standardised reflux testing. A vascular surgeon blinded to treatment established the clinical status of the lower limb following the previous DVT.
Valvular competence was preserved in 44% of patients treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with 13% of those treated with systemic thrombolysis (p=0.049, Chi squared). Reflux in any deep vein was present in 44% of patients treated by catheter-directed lysis compared with 81% of patients receiving systemic thrombolysis (p=0.03, Chi squared). Reflux in any superficial vein was observed in 25% vs. 63% of the patients, respectively (p=0.03, Chi squared). There were significantly more patients with venous insufficiency of classes C0-1 in the group treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis.
In this clinical series venous valvular function was better preserved after iliofemoral DVT when treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
55 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment guidelines for thrombolysis in iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) are based on a limited number of observational and prospective studies. The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial will be the first large, multi-center randomized control trial to evaluate the relative advantages of several current treatment strategies. To summarize the existing data that inform the use of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) or pharmacomechanical thrombectomy in the management of acute iliofemoral DVT. A search of the current literature was done using PubMed, Ovid and Cochrane databases for all available articles published to December 2013. Of those studies which included at least 25 patients, 19 case series' were identified from 1996-2012. Treatment groups included anticoagulation, surgical thrombectomy, pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and CDT. Cases observed in each ranged from 26 to101. Three studies were identified which derived data from national multicenter registries. Only 2 randomized control trials were identified from 2002 and 2012. Both support the use of CDT over anticoagulation alone for treatment of iliofemoral DVT. Conclusions Current treatment guidelines for acute iliofemoral DVT have been in flux and are derived from a relatively small amount of clinical data. They are summarized here in anticipation of results from the ongoing ATTRACT trial.
    Annals of Vascular Surgery 01/2014; · 0.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article addresses the treatment of VTE disease. We generated strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high-quality (Grade A), moderate-quality (Grade B), and low-quality (Grade C) evidence. For acute DVT or pulmonary embolism (PE), we recommend initial parenteral anticoagulant therapy (Grade 1B) or anticoagulation with rivaroxaban. We suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or fondaparinux over IV unfractionated heparin (Grade 2C) or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for PE with hypotension (Grade 2C). For proximal DVT or PE, we recommend treatment of 3 months over shorter periods (Grade 1B). For a first proximal DVT or PE that is provoked by surgery or by a nonsurgical transient risk factor, we recommend 3 months of therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if provoked by a nonsurgical risk factor and low or moderate bleeding risk); that is unprovoked, we suggest extended therapy if bleeding risk is low or moderate (Grade 2B) and recommend 3 months of therapy if bleeding risk is high (Grade 1B); and that is associated with active cancer, we recommend extended therapy (Grade 1B; Grade 2B if high bleeding risk) and suggest LMWH over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). We suggest vitamin K antagonists or LMWH over dabigatran or rivaroxaban (Grade 2B). We suggest compression stockings to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (Grade 2B). For extensive superficial vein thrombosis, we suggest prophylactic-dose fondaparinux or LMWH over no anticoagulation (Grade 2B), and suggest fondaparinux over LMWH (Grade 2C). Strong recommendations apply to most patients, whereas weak recommendations are sensitive to differences among patients, including their preferences.
    Chest 02/2012; 141(2 Suppl):e419S-94S. · 5.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Improved medical treatment options have advanced pediatric care but often necessitate both invasive vascular procedures and venous access predisposing these patients to venous thrombotic events. Although pediatric deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is an increasingly recognized phenomenon, high-quality evidence for its antithrombotic treatment in general remains limited, and even more so with respect to thrombolytic therapy. Correspondingly, current American College of Chest Physicians guidelines discourage the routine use of thrombolytic therapy for pediatric DVT; by contrast, American Heart Association guidelines suggest consideration for such therapy in young patients in whom the balance of benefit to risk may be most favorable. The developing hemostatic system and relative rarity of thrombotic events have historically posed impediments to the design and conduction of prospective clinical trials of thrombolysis in children. This narrative review summarizes available information regarding thrombolytic therapy for pediatric DVT.
    Seminars in Interventional Radiology 03/2012; 29(1):36-43.