Search

Objective: To compare the treatment outcomes among percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) with AngioJet, Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), and a combination of both. Methods: One hundred forty nine patients with acute or sub-acute iliac-femoral vein thrombosis accepting CDT and/or PMT were divided into three groups respectively: PMT group, CDT group, PMT + CDT group (PMT followed by CDT). The severity of thrombosis was evaluated by venographic scoring system. Technical success was defined as restored patent deep venous blood flow after CDT and/or PMT. Clinical follow-up were assessed by ultrasound or venography imaging. The primary endpoints were recurrence of DVT, and severity level of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) during the follow-up. Results: Technical success and immediate clinical improvements were achieved on all patients. The proportion of sub-acute DVT and the venographic scoring in PMT + CDT group were significantly higher than that in CDT group and PMT group (proportion of sub-acute DVT: p = 0.032 and p = 0.005, respectively; venographic scoring: p < 0.001, respectively). The proportion of May-Thurner Syndrome was lower in PMT group than that in CDT and PMT + CDT group (p = 0.026 and p = 0.005, respectively). The proportion of DVT recurrence/stent thrombosis was significantly higher in CDT group than that in PMT + CDT group (p = 0.04). The severity of PTS was the highest in CDT group (χ2 = 14.459, p = 0.006) compared to PMT group (p = 0.029) and PMT + CDT group (p = 0.006). Conclusion: Patients with sub-acute DVT, high SVS scoring and combined May-Thurner Syndrome were recommended to take PMT + CDT treatment and might have lower rate of DVT recurrence/stent thrombosis and severe PTS. Our study provided evidence detailing of PMT + CDT therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Up to now, the indications of inferior vena cava filter placement still remain controversial in the academic field. The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors of detachment of thrombus and to evaluate the necessity of inferior vena cava filter placement to prevent fatal pulmonary embolism., Materials and Methods: A total of 2892 patients participated in the multicenter prospective observational study from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018, and underwent retrievable inferior vena cava filter (RIVCF) placement in 103 centers in China. The primary endpoint of the study was RIVCF trapped embolus detected by inferior vena cava venography/ultrasound/computed tomography scanning or visible macroscopic thrombus before or during RIVCF retrieval. The relative factors of RIVCF trapped embolus were analyzed accordingly., Results: The average age of the patients was 61.0 (50.0-71.0) years. Retrievable inferior vena cava filter trapped embolus occurred in 308 patients (10.65%). The fracture location, surgery location, and endovascular intervention differed between RIVCF trapped embolus and non-RIVCF trapped embolus groups (p<0.001, respectively). By multivariate analysis, RIVCF trapped embolus were less common in older patients (odds ratio [OR]=0.998; p<0.001) and more common in patients with below-the-knee fracture (OR=1.093, p=0.038), thigh fracture (OR=1.118, p=0.007), and pelvis surgery (OR=1.067, p=0.016). In addition, compared with patients without endovascular intervention, patients with percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) + catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) were more prone to develop RIVCF trapped embolus (OR=1.060, p=0.010). However, RIVCF trapped embolus was less common in patients with CDT (OR=0.961, p=0.004)., Conclusions: Lower limb fracture, pelvis surgery, and PMT + CDT are prone to cause trapped embolus. As a trapped embolus often represents the possibility of severe pulmonary embolism, lower limb fracture, pelvis surgery, and PMT + CDT could be risk factors of fatal pulmonary embolism. Due to the low incidence of trapped embolus, it is not necessary to place filters in elderly patients and CDT-only patients., Clinical Impact: The purpose of this paper is to standardize the use of inferior vena cava filter and avoid unnecessary filter implantation through the summary and analysis of a large number of clinical data. At the same time, more attention should be paid to and active treatment should be given to high-risk groups of pulmonary embolism., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.