BACKGROUND: There is currently little consensus on the role of thrombectomy compared with catheter-directed lysis (CDL) for acute, extensive, proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We sought to determine whether any differences in outcomes exist between thrombectomy and CDL in terms of postoperative venous patency, pulmonary emboli (PE), and bleeding/hematoma. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, patients from a single academic medical center with confirmed lower extremity DVT were divided into thrombectomy and CDL cohorts. Demographic information, comorbidities and laboratory data, postoperative patency, postoperative bleeding, postoperative PE, popliteal hematoma, and recurrence of DVT were collected. Type I error level was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were identified, 51.7% received CDL, and 48.3% underwent thrombectomy. Patient comorbidities and hypercoagulable states were not significantly different among the groups. The two techniques did not have significantly different postoperative patency (P = 0.472), bleeding (P = 0.598), PE (P = 0.868), popliteal hematoma (P = 0.331), or recurrence of DVT (P = 0.835). CONCLUSIONS: In selecting optimum treatment for acute, extensive, proximal DVT, our retrospective cohort study found no significant differences among treatment groups in safety, efficacy, recurrence, and progression to PE. We conclude that modality of treatment should be decided based on hospital resources, surgeon experience, and comfort with each technique, patient's physiologic status, and associated costs.
BACKGROUND: There is currently little consensus on the role of thrombectomy compared with catheter-directed lysis (CDL) for acute, extensive, proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We sought to determine whether any differences in outcomes exist between thrombectomy and CDL in terms of postoperative venous patency, pulmonary emboli (PE), and bleeding/hematoma. METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study, patients from a single academic medical center with confirmed lower extremity DVT were divided into thrombectomy and CDL cohorts. Demographic information, comorbidities and laboratory data, postoperative patency, postoperative bleeding, postoperative PE, popliteal hematoma, and recurrence of DVT were collected. Type I error level was set at 0.05. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were identified, 51.7% received CDL, and 48.3% underwent thrombectomy. Patient comorbidities and hypercoagulable states were not significantly different among the groups. The two techniques did not have significantly different postoperative patency (P = 0.472), bleeding (P = 0.598), PE (P = 0.868), popliteal hematoma (P = 0.331), or recurrence of DVT (P = 0.835). CONCLUSIONS: In selecting optimum treatment for acute, extensive, proximal DVT, our retrospective cohort study found no significant differences among treatment groups in safety, efficacy, recurrence, and progression to PE. We conclude that modality of treatment should be decided based on hospital resources, surgeon experience, and comfort with each technique, patient's physiologic status, and associated costs.