Scott D Bendix1, Ryan Nolan2, Simpledeep Banipal3, William F Oppat4. 1. Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ascension Providence Hospital/Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Southfield, Mich. Electronic address: sdbendix@gmail.com. 2. Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ascension Providence Hospital/Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Southfield, Mich. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, Wayne State University, Detroit, Mich. 4. Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Ascension Providence Hospital/Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, Southfield, Mich; Department of Vascular Surgery, Wayne State University, Detroit, Mich.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) remains a significant cause of morbidity in the American population. Catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral DVT is an effective therapy not only to restore venous patency but also to reduce the development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), especially in patients with extensive thrombosis involving the iliac and femoral venous segments. We hypothesized that delivery of thrombolytics through an access site in a vein distal to the segments containing thrombus would provide the greatest short- and long-term therapeutic clinical benefit with similar safety and efficacy. METHODS: All patients treated at a single institution between 2009 and 2016 undergoing mechanical and chemical thrombolysis for iliofemoral DVT were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into groups by access site, including contralateral and ipsilateral femoral vein, popliteal vein, and posterior tibial vein (PTV). Preoperative demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outpatient charts were analyzed. Primary end points included evidence of incompetence after the procedure by duplex ultrasound assessment and development of complications of PTS as defined by the Villalta scale. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients underwent mechanical and chemical thrombolysis, and 51 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thrombolysis access was through PTV (n = 27), popliteal vein (n = 20), or femoral vein (n = 4). More patients were female (55%), and the mean age was 57 years. Forty patients had unilateral DVT, whereas 11 patients had bilateral involvement. After lysis, 44 patients underwent percutaneous venous angioplasty and 11 patients underwent venous stenting in the acute setting. Although not statistically significant, mean operative times were slightly longer in the posterior tibial approach (156.7 minutes vs 130.6 minutes; P = .08), and mean fluoroscopy time was higher in the posterior tibial group (18.1 minutes vs 14.3 minutes; P = .17). Overall 90-day morbidity was 9.8%, and no deaths were recorded. Patency of the deep venous system was similar between the posterior tibial and the popliteal or femoral approach (95% vs 88%; P = .29); 21.6% developed symptoms of PTS. There was no difference for development of PTS between posterior tibial and popliteal or femoral approaches (22% vs 20.8%; P = .52). There was no difference in development of chronic nonocclusive DVT (37% vs 35%; P = .61). Median follow-up was 8.7 months (range, 0.4-58.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: The PTV approach to catheter-directed thrombolysis is a safe and sensible option for the treatment of iliofemoral and femoropopliteal DVT. A larger cohort will be necessary to demonstrate superiority of tibial vein access in the treatment of iliofemoral DVT with popliteal involvement.
OBJECTIVE:Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) remains a significant cause of morbidity in the American population. Catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral DVT is an effective therapy not only to restore venous patency but also to reduce the development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), especially in patients with extensive thrombosis involving the iliac and femoral venous segments. We hypothesized that delivery of thrombolytics through an access site in a vein distal to the segments containing thrombus would provide the greatest short- and long-term therapeutic clinical benefit with similar safety and efficacy. METHODS: All patients treated at a single institution between 2009 and 2016 undergoing mechanical and chemical thrombolysis for iliofemoral DVT were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into groups by access site, including contralateral and ipsilateral femoral vein, popliteal vein, and posterior tibial vein (PTV). Preoperative demographics, intraoperative data, and postoperative outpatient charts were analyzed. Primary end points included evidence of incompetence after the procedure by duplex ultrasound assessment and development of complications of PTS as defined by the Villalta scale. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients underwent mechanical and chemical thrombolysis, and 51 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thrombolysis access was through PTV (n = 27), popliteal vein (n = 20), or femoral vein (n = 4). More patients were female (55%), and the mean age was 57 years. Forty patients had unilateral DVT, whereas 11 patients had bilateral involvement. After lysis, 44 patients underwent percutaneous venous angioplasty and 11 patients underwent venous stenting in the acute setting. Although not statistically significant, mean operative times were slightly longer in the posterior tibial approach (156.7 minutes vs 130.6 minutes; P = .08), and mean fluoroscopy time was higher in the posterior tibial group (18.1 minutes vs 14.3 minutes; P = .17). Overall 90-day morbidity was 9.8%, and no deaths were recorded. Patency of the deep venous system was similar between the posterior tibial and the popliteal or femoral approach (95% vs 88%; P = .29); 21.6% developed symptoms of PTS. There was no difference for development of PTS between posterior tibial and popliteal or femoral approaches (22% vs 20.8%; P = .52). There was no difference in development of chronic nonocclusive DVT (37% vs 35%; P = .61). Median follow-up was 8.7 months (range, 0.4-58.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: The PTV approach to catheter-directed thrombolysis is a safe and sensible option for the treatment of iliofemoral and femoropopliteal DVT. A larger cohort will be necessary to demonstrate superiority of tibial vein access in the treatment of iliofemoral DVT with popliteal involvement.