Literature DB >> 30546548

Editorial: Endovascular treatment for acute proximal deep vein thrombosis.

Norikazu Yamada1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  Deep vein thrombosis; Endovascular treatment; Inferior vena cava filter; Pulmonary thromboembolism; Thrombolysis

Year:  2015        PMID: 30546548      PMCID: PMC6279978          DOI: 10.1016/j.jccase.2015.01.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiol Cases        ISSN: 1878-5409


× No keyword cloud information.
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) can cause both pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). DVT treatment aims to relieve the acute symptoms of limb swelling and pain, reduce the risk of PTE, and prevent long-term disability from chronic venous insufficiency including persistent leg pain and swelling, pigmentation, venous claudication, and skin ulceration. Standard anticoagulation can decrease PTE and thrombus propagation but cannot gain early reduction of thrombus burden. Approximately half of the patients with iliofemoral DVT treated by anticoagulation alone develop PTS 1, 2. Early thrombus removal appears to be important to gain rapid symptom relief, preserve valvular function, and prevent PTS 3, 4, 5. Systemic thrombolysis is more effective than heparinization [6], but was discouraged by high rates of incomplete clot lysis and bleeding complications [7]. Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) offers significant advantages over systemic thrombolysis, which can fail to reach and penetrate an occluded venous thrombus 8, 9, 10. With CDT, clot lysis rate can be improved, and treatment duration and bleeding complication rate can be reduced by delivery of higher concentrations of drug to thrombus. In this issue of the Journal, Okabe et al. reported that a 24-year-old woman with acute iliofemoral DVT and submassive PTE was successfully treated with CDT using monteplase after catheter aspiration and fragmentation for DVT in conjunction with retrievable inferior vena cava (IVC) filter which was removed after clot lysis [11]. The efficacy of endovascular treatment for acute iliofemoral DVT was also demonstrated in this case. The CaVenT (Catheter-directed Venous Thrombolysis in Acute Iliofemoral Vein Thrombosis) study provided good quality evidence that venous patency rate and venous valvular function were better preserved in patients with acute iliofemoral DVT treated with CDT than anticoagulation alone [12]. This study was an open-label, randomized controlled trial which enrolled 209 patients with first-time iliofemoral DVT within 21 days from symptom onset. It demonstrated that iliofemoral patency after 6 months was significantly higher on CDT than anticoagulation alone (65.9% vs 47.4%, p = 0.012) and PTS assessed by Villalta score at 24 months was significantly lower on CDT than anticoagulation alone (41.1% vs 55.6%, p = 0.047). The ATTRACT (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) study is an ongoing US National Institutes of Health-sponsored, phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded, parallel two-arm, controlled clinical trial [13]. Approximately 692 patients with acute proximal DVT involving the femoral, common femoral, and/or iliac vein are being randomized to receive pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) [using the Trellis Peripheral Infusion System (Covidien, Inc., Mansfield, MA, USA) or the AngioJet Rheolytic Thrombectomy System (MEDRAD Interventional – Bayer, Minneapolis, MN, USA)] + standard therapy versus standard therapy alone. The primary study hypothesis is that PCDT will reduce the proportion of patients who develop PTS within 2 years. Secondary outcomes include safety, general and venous disease-specific quality of life, relief of early pain and swelling, and cost-effectiveness. This study will provide further evidence regarding the clinical utility of these techniques. Supplementary stent implantation for persistent significant stenosis or obstruction in iliac vein following CDT or PCDT, especially left side so-called iliac compression syndrome, should be performed to gain outflow tract venous flow. Balloon venoplasty alone is often ineffective due to recoil. Venous stenting appears to improve the iliofemoral patency and clinical outcome [14]. The careful selection of patients is important to the success of these techniques, e.g. duration of symptoms, anatomic distribution and form of thrombus, and the risk of complications (Fig. 1). A scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the following: CDT or PCDT is reasonable as first-line treatment of patients with acute iliofemoral DVT to prevent PTS in selected patients at low risk of bleeding complications (Class IIa; Level of Evidence B). CDT or PCDT should not be given to most patients with chronic DVT symptoms (>21 days) or patients who are at high risk for bleeding complications (Class III; Level of Evidence B). Systemic fibrinolysis should not be given routinely to patients with iliofemoral DVT (Class III; Level of Evidence A) [15].
Fig. 1

Treatment strategy for acute iliofemoral DVT.

*Necessity of non-permanent IVC filter is controversial.

CDT, catheter-directed thrombolysis; CT, computed tomography; PCDT, pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis; PTE, pulmonary thromboembolism; RV, right ventricle; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; IVC, inferior vena cava; VTE, venous thromboembolism.

Treatment strategy for acute iliofemoral DVT. *Necessity of non-permanent IVC filter is controversial. CDT, catheter-directed thrombolysis; CT, computed tomography; PCDT, pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis; PTE, pulmonary thromboembolism; RV, right ventricle; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; IVC, inferior vena cava; VTE, venous thromboembolism. There are a lot of unresolved issues such as the optimal dose of thrombolytic agents, appropriate duration from the onset for this treatment, necessity of non-permanent IVC filter for PTE protection during this procedure, and cost effectiveness of this treatment. Further evidence regarding this treatment should be evaluated in the future.
  13 in total

1.  Short- and long-term results after thrombolytic treatment of deep venous thrombosis.

Authors:  J Schweizer; W Kirch; R Koch; H Elix; G Hellner; L Forkmann; A Graf
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 2.  Relationship between deep venous thrombosis and the postthrombotic syndrome.

Authors:  Susan R Kahn; Jeffrey S Ginsberg
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004-01-12

3.  Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Authors:  Michael R Jaff; M Sean McMurtry; Stephen L Archer; Mary Cushman; Neil Goldenberg; Samuel Z Goldhaber; J Stephen Jenkins; Jeffrey A Kline; Andrew D Michaels; Patricia Thistlethwaite; Suresh Vedantham; R James White; Brenda K Zierler
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis: aggressive therapy with catheter-directed thrombolysis.

Authors:  C P Semba; M D Dake
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Thrombolysis for lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  Mark W Mewissen
Journal:  Semin Vasc Surg       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.000

6.  Pulse-spray pharmacomechanical thrombolysis for proximal deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  N Yamada; K Ishikura; S Ota; A Tsuji; M Nakamura; M Ito; N Isaka; T Nakano
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 7.069

7.  Long-term outcome after additional catheter-directed thrombolysis versus standard treatment for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (the CaVenT study): a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Tone Enden; Ylva Haig; Nils-Einar Kløw; Carl-Erik Slagsvold; Leiv Sandvik; Waleed Ghanima; Geir Hafsahl; Pål Andre Holme; Lars Olaf Holmen; Anne Mette Njaastad; Gunnar Sandbæk; Per Morten Sandset
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  Early and long-term outcomes of venous stent implantation for iliac venous stenosis after catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  Akimasa Matsuda; Norikazu Yamada; Yoshito Ogihara; Akihiro Tsuji; Satoshi Ota; Ken Ishikura; Mashio Nakamura; Masaaki Ito
Journal:  Circ J       Date:  2014-03-03       Impact factor: 2.993

9.  Rationale and design of the ATTRACT Study: a multicenter randomized trial to evaluate pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis for the prevention of postthrombotic syndrome in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis.

Authors:  Suresh Vedantham; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Susan R Kahn; Jim Julian; Elizabeth Magnuson; Michael R Jaff; Timothy P Murphy; David J Cohen; Anthony J Comerota; Heather L Gornik; Mahmood K Razavi; Lawrence Lewis; Clive Kearon
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 4.749

10.  Pooled analyses of randomized trials of streptokinase and heparin in phlebographically documented acute deep venous thrombosis.

Authors:  S Z Goldhaber; J E Buring; R J Lipnick; C H Hennekens
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 4.965

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.