Literature DB >> 28440041

Ultrasound-assisted versus conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis: 1-year follow-up data of a randomized-controlled trial.

R P Engelberger1,2, A Stuck1, D Spirk3, T Willenberg1, A Haine1, D Périard2, I Baumgartner1, N Kucher1.   

Abstract

Essentials Acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis can be treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). We performed a randomized trial comparing conventional CDT versus ultrasound-assisted CDT (USAT). Clinical and duplex sonographic outcomes at 12 months were similar in the CDT and USAT groups. In both groups, incidence of postthrombotic syndrome was very low with good quality of life.
SUMMARY: Background In patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IFDVT), catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) aims to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). Adding intravascular high-frequency, low-power ultrasound energy to CDT does not seem to improve the immediate thrombolysis results but its impact on clinical outcomes at 12 months is not known. Patients/Methods In this randomized-controlled trial, 48 patients (mean age 50 ± 21 years; 52% women) with acute IFDVT were randomized to conventional CDT (n = 24) or ultrasound-assisted CDT (USAT; n = 24). In both groups, a fixed-dose thrombolysis regimen (20 mg r-tPA over 15 h) was used, followed by routine stenting of residual venous obstruction. At 12 months, PTS and venous disease severity (Villalta score and revised Venous Clinical Severity Score [rVCSS]), disease-specific quality of live (QOL; CIVIQ-20) and duplex-sonographic outcomes were assessed. Results Among the 45 surviving patients, 40 (89%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 76-96%) patients were free from PTS (defined as Villalta score < 5 points; 83%, 95% CI 61-95% in the USAT and 96%, 95% CI 77-100% in the CDT group), with a similar mean total Villalta score of 2.3 ± 2.9 vs. 1.7 ± 1.6, and a mean total rVCSS of 3.0 ± 3.5 vs. 2.7 ± 2.9 in the USAT and the CDT groups, respectively. Both groups had good disease-specific QOL with a CIVIQ-20 score of 29.4 ± 11.8 vs. 26.1 ± 7.8, respectively. Primary (100% vs. 92%) and secondary (100% vs. 96%) iliofemoral patency rates and presence of femoro-popliteal venous reflux (39% vs. 33%) were similar in both groups. Conclusion The addition of intravascular ultrasound energy to conventional CDT for the treatment of acute IFDVT did not have any impact on relevant clinical or duplex sonographic outcomes, which were favorable in both study groups. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier:NCT01482273.
© 2017 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  postthrombotic syndrome; thrombolytic therapy; thrombosis; ultrasonography; veins

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28440041     DOI: 10.1111/jth.13709

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thromb Haemost        ISSN: 1538-7836            Impact factor:   5.824


  8 in total

1.  Catheter-directed thrombolysis to avoid late consequences of acute deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  Suresh Vedantham
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 3.944

2.  Endovascular Thrombus Removal for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis.

Authors:  Anthony J Comerota; Clive Kearon; Chu-Shu Gu; Jim A Julian; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Susan R Kahn; Michael R Jaff; Mahmood K Razavi; Andrei L Kindzelski; Riyaz Bashir; Parag Patel; Mel Sharafuddin; Michael J Sichlau; Wael E Saad; Zakaria Assi; Lawrence V Hofmann; Margaret Kennedy; Suresh Vedantham
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 3.  Thrombectomy and thrombolysis for the prevention and treatment of postthrombotic syndrome.

Authors:  Suresh Vedantham
Journal:  Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program       Date:  2017-12-08

Review 4.  Can thrombus age guide thrombolytic therapy?

Authors:  Christopher Czaplicki; Hassan Albadawi; Sasan Partovi; Ripal T Gandhi; Keith Quencer; Amy R Deipolyi; Rahmi Oklu
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2017-12

5.  Thrombolytic strategies versus standard anticoagulation for acute deep vein thrombosis of the lower limb.

Authors:  Cathryn Broderick; Lorna Watson; Matthew P Armon
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-01-19

Review 6.  Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis: 2021 update.

Authors:  Samuel Z Goldhaber; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Khaja M Chinnakondepalli; David J Cohen; Suresh Vedantham
Journal:  Vasc Med       Date:  2021-10-04       Impact factor: 4.739

7.  A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 12-Month Patency After Intervention for Iliofemoral Obstruction Using Dedicated or Non-Dedicated Venous Stents.

Authors:  Ghulam M Majeed; Krishan Lodhia; Jemima Carter; Jack Kingdon; Rachael I Morris; Adam Gwozdz; Athanasios Saratzis; Prakash Saha
Journal:  J Endovasc Ther       Date:  2021-11-10       Impact factor: 3.089

8.  Clinical Outcomes of a Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Venous Thrombolysis Strategy that Included Rheolytic Thrombectomy in a Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Suresh Vedantham; Amber Salter; Samantha Lancia; Lawrence Lewis; Siddhant Thukral; Susan R Kahn
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 3.682

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.