ObjectiveTo compare vein valve function following pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (PMT) with simple catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for deep vein thrombosis.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of sixty patients who suffered acute lower extremity deep vein thrombsis in our hospital between October 2016 and March 2017. All patients underwent contralateral preprocedural duplex and bilateral postprocedure duplex to access patency and valve function. The patients were divided into three groups including a group A with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) alone (36 patients with 20 males and 16 females at average age of 56 years), a group B with PMT alone (15 patients with 8 males and 7 females at average age of 55 years), and a group C with PMT combined CDT (9 patients with 4 males and 5 females at average age of 56 years). The valve function was compared among the Group A, Group B and Group C.ResultsThere were 40.0% (24/60) patients with bilateral femoral vein valve reflux, 40.0% (24/60) patients with unilateral femoral vein valve reflux (all in the treated limbs), 20% (12/60) patients had no reflux in both limbs. Of the limbs treated with CDT alone, PMT alone and PMT combined CDT, the rate of valve reflux was 38.9% (14/36), 33.3% (5/15), and 55.6% (5/9) respectively (P=0.077).ConclusionIn the patients suffering acute DVT, PMT or PMT combined CDT does not hamper valve function compared with CDT alone.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluated the efficacy of AngioJet mechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the treatment of acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (LEDVT).MethodsAccording to the retrieval strategy of Cochrane collaboration network, the relevant literatures in CNKI, WangFang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science at home and abroad up to March 25, 2020 were collected, and the meta analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 20 observational studies were included in the meta analysis. The total number of patients was 1 566, which 799 cases in the AngioJet group and 767 cases in the CDT group. The results showed that the AngioJet group had a higher patency rate of deep vein ［MD=11.34, 95%CI (6.16, 16.51), P<0.000 1］, lower or shorter Villalta score ［MD=–1.90, 95%CI (–2.71, –1.10), P<0.000 01］, incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome［PTS, OR=0.42, 95%CI (0.23, 0.77), P=0.005］, rate of clot reduction grade Ⅰ events ［OR=0.40, 95%CI (0.24, 0.67), P=0.000 5］, incidence of bleeding complication ［OR=0.32, 95%CI (0.21, 0.49), P<0.000 01］, and hospital stay ［MD=–2.96, 95%CI (–3.69, –2.22), P<0.000 01］.ConclusionsIn the early efficacy, AngioJet mechanical thrombectomy has better patency rate of deep vein and thrombolysis, shorter hospital stay, and lower risk of bleeding than CDT. In the mid-term effect, AngioJet mechanical thrombectomy could reduce the incidence and the severity of PTS.
ObjectiveTo compare the effect of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) combined with anticoagulation (AC) and AC in the treatment of acute proximal deep venous thrombosis (APDVT) of the lower extremities. MethodsThe clinical data of 184 APDVT patients treated in Guizhou Provincial People’s Hospital from January 2017 to December 2022 were retrospectively collected. According to the treatment methods, the patients were divided into CDT group (n=82, CDT combined with AC) and AC group (n=102, AC alone). The prognosis indicators such as the incidence of bleeding events, the incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), Villalta score, venous clinical severity score (VCSS) and chronic lower limb venous insufficiency questionnaire (CIVIQ) score were compared between the two groups. ResultsCompared with the AC group, the CDT group had a higher incidence of bleeding events [11.0% (9/82) vs. 2.9% (3/102)], a shorter time to detumescent [(2.8±1.2) d vs. (7.2±1.9) d], and lower VS score [3 (2,4) vs. 3 (2, 7)], VCSS score [2.0 (1.7, 4.0) vs. 3.0 (2.0, 5.2)] and postoperative venous patency score [1 (1, 2) vs. 2 (1, 3)], and higher CIVIQ score [80.0 (77.0, 86.0) vs. 71.5 (68.0, 78.0)], P<0.05. However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of PTS [28.2% (22/78) vs. 36.5% (35/96)] and thrombosis recurrence rate [9.0% (7/78) vs. 11.5% (11/96)] between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionCDT can relieve the symptoms and improve the quality of life of APDVT faster than AC, but it is necessary to strictly grasp the indications of thrombolysis to reduce the risk of bleeding.