Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014 Aug;37(4):969-76. doi: 10.1007/s00270-014-0925-y. Epub 2014 Jun 17.

Use of percutaneous aspiration thrombectomy vs. anticoagulation therapy to treat acute iliofemoral venous thrombosis: 1-year follow-up results of a randomised, clinical trial.

Author information

1
Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Department of Radiology, Division of İnterventional Radiology, Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey, drvolkancakir@gmail.com.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of percutaneous aspiration thrombectomy (PAT) followed by standard anticoagulant therapy, with anticoagulation therapy alone, for the treatment of acute proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.

METHODS:

In this randomised, prospective study, 42 patients with acute proximal iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis documented via Doppler ultrasound examination, were separated into an interventional treatment group (16 males, 5 females, average age 51 years) and a medical treatment group (13 males, 8 females, average age 59 years). In the interventional group, PAT with large-lumen 9-F diameter catheterisation was applied, after initiation of standard anticoagulant therapy. Balloon angioplasty (n 19) and stent implementation (n: 14) were used to treat patients with residual stenosis (>50 %) after PAT. Prophylactic IVC filters were placed in two patients. The thrombus clearance status of the venous system was evaluated by venography. In both the medical and interventional groups, venous patency rates and clinical symptom scores were evaluated at months 1, 3, and 12 after treatment.

RESULTS:

Deep venous systems became totally cleared of thrombi in 12 patients treated with PAT. The venous patency rates in month 12 were 57.1 and 4.76 % in the interventional and medical treatment groups, respectively. A statistically significant improvement was observed in clinical symptom scores of the interventional group (PAT) with or without stenting (4.23 ± 0.51 before treatment; 0.81 ± 0.92 at month 12) compared with the medical treatment group (4.00 ± 0.63 before treatment; 2.43 ± 0.67 at month 12). During follow-up, four patients in the medical treatment and one in the interventional group developed pulmonary embolisms.

CONCLUSIONS:

For treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis, PAT with or without stenting is superior to anticoagulant therapy alone in terms of both ensuring venous patency and improving clinical symptoms. PAT is a safe, inexpensive, and easily performed method of endovascular treatment with a low rate of major complications. Our present findings and literature data suggest that PAT can be used as first-line treatment in proximal deep vein thrombosis patients, especially when thrombolytic treatment is contraindicated.

PMID:
24934734
DOI:
10.1007/s00270-014-0925-y
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer
    Loading ...
    Support Center