PURPOSE: To compare the thrombolytic efficacy and safety of standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound (US)-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All medical records of patients who underwent CDT or UAT for DVT between June 2004 and October 2011 at a single tertiary care center were reviewed. Target vein patency was graded according to a reporting standard by an independent interventional radiologist. RESULTS: CDT was performed in 19 patients and UAT in 64 patients. The baseline parameters and DVT characteristics, including the duration of symptoms, the location, and the extension did not differ significantly between groups. Both treatment modalities were associated with a similar substantial resolution of thrombus load (CDT = 89%; interquartile range [IQR], 70%-100%; UAT = 82%; IQR, 55%-92% (P = .560). No significant differences in the lytic drug infusion rates, the total lytic doses, the total infusion time, and the use of adjunctive procedures were observed between groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were observed in 8.4% and 4.8% of the patients, with no difference between the treatment groups (P = .709 and P = .918, respectively). During a median follow-up of 35 months (20-55 months), three deaths and 16 cases of repeated thrombosis were observed. The estimated mean event-free survival time was longer after CDT (69 mo) compared with UAT (33 mo) (log-rank test P = .310). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to prove any substantial clinical benefit provided by UAT with regard to effectiveness or safety compared with standard CDT. Given the added costs of the US delivery device, prospective randomized data are needed to justify its widespread use for DVT treatment.
PURPOSE: To compare the thrombolytic efficacy and safety of standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound (US)-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All medical records of patients who underwent CDT or UAT for DVT between June 2004 and October 2011 at a single tertiary care center were reviewed. Target vein patency was graded according to a reporting standard by an independent interventional radiologist. RESULTS:CDT was performed in 19 patients and UAT in 64 patients. The baseline parameters and DVT characteristics, including the duration of symptoms, the location, and the extension did not differ significantly between groups. Both treatment modalities were associated with a similar substantial resolution of thrombus load (CDT = 89%; interquartile range [IQR], 70%-100%; UAT = 82%; IQR, 55%-92% (P = .560). No significant differences in the lytic drug infusion rates, the total lytic doses, the total infusion time, and the use of adjunctive procedures were observed between groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were observed in 8.4% and 4.8% of the patients, with no difference between the treatment groups (P = .709 and P = .918, respectively). During a median follow-up of 35 months (20-55 months), three deaths and 16 cases of repeated thrombosis were observed. The estimated mean event-free survival time was longer after CDT (69 mo) compared with UAT (33 mo) (log-rank test P = .310). CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to prove any substantial clinical benefit provided by UAT with regard to effectiveness or safety compared with standard CDT. Given the added costs of the US delivery device, prospective randomized data are needed to justify its widespread use for DVT treatment.
Authors: Maureen P Kohi; Ryan Kohlbrenner; Kanti P Kolli; Evan Lehrman; Andrew G Taylor; Nicholas Fidelman Journal: Cardiovasc Diagn Ther Date: 2016-12
Authors: 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 Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 2.740