We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparison of Aspiration Thrombectomy to other endovascular therapies for Proximal Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis.
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and Lymphatic Disorders 2021 August 24
OBJECTIVE: Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) provides an effective method for clearing deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Unfortunately, CDT is associated with hemorrhagic complications. This study evaluated the technical success of the various endovascular therapies including a new mechanical aspiration thrombectomy (AT) device for the treatment of acute upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT).
METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective review of patients with acute symptomatic proximal UEDVT secondary to venous thoracic outlet syndrome. Undergoing endovascular therapy from December 2013 to June 2019. Patients were treated with a variety of methods including CDT, ultrasound assisted thrombolysis (USAT), rheolytic thrombectomy (RT) and aspiration thrombectomy (AT). We evaluated outcomes for patients undergoing AT compared to non-aspiration thrombectomy (NAT) techniques. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as resolution of >70% of thrombus. The secondary endpoint was the ability to complete the therapy in a single session.
RESULTS: There were 22 patients who had endovascular management of their symptomatic proximal UEDVT. All 22 (100%) patients were successfully treated with greater than 70% thrombus resolution. 10 patients underwent AT, of which 50% (5/10) had single session therapies. 12 patients underwent NAT (3 had CDT or USAT alone; 3 had USAT with RT; and 6 had CDT followed by RT), with single session therapy occurring in only 8.3% (1/12) of the NAT group. The average total dose of thrombolytics was 12.6mg (SD= 9.65) in the AT group compared to 19.0mg (SD= 5.78) in the NAT group (mean difference -6.4; 95% CI -1.1, 13.9). All but one of the patients in the AT group went on to have successful first rib resections. All NAT patients had successful first rib resections. Venogram was not performed at the time of decompression. All patients except one underwent resection via the infraclavicular approach, with rib removal posterior to the brachial plexus, a median of 8.0 [IQR 6.0, 12.0] days following DVT therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, technical success of 100% was achieved for acute symptomatic proximal UEDVT therapies. AT technology allows for higher rates of treatment in a single session thereby minimizing a patient's risks of bleeding complications. Further research is needed to further define the role of this new technology in the treatment paradigm of UEDVT management.
METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective review of patients with acute symptomatic proximal UEDVT secondary to venous thoracic outlet syndrome. Undergoing endovascular therapy from December 2013 to June 2019. Patients were treated with a variety of methods including CDT, ultrasound assisted thrombolysis (USAT), rheolytic thrombectomy (RT) and aspiration thrombectomy (AT). We evaluated outcomes for patients undergoing AT compared to non-aspiration thrombectomy (NAT) techniques. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as resolution of >70% of thrombus. The secondary endpoint was the ability to complete the therapy in a single session.
RESULTS: There were 22 patients who had endovascular management of their symptomatic proximal UEDVT. All 22 (100%) patients were successfully treated with greater than 70% thrombus resolution. 10 patients underwent AT, of which 50% (5/10) had single session therapies. 12 patients underwent NAT (3 had CDT or USAT alone; 3 had USAT with RT; and 6 had CDT followed by RT), with single session therapy occurring in only 8.3% (1/12) of the NAT group. The average total dose of thrombolytics was 12.6mg (SD= 9.65) in the AT group compared to 19.0mg (SD= 5.78) in the NAT group (mean difference -6.4; 95% CI -1.1, 13.9). All but one of the patients in the AT group went on to have successful first rib resections. All NAT patients had successful first rib resections. Venogram was not performed at the time of decompression. All patients except one underwent resection via the infraclavicular approach, with rib removal posterior to the brachial plexus, a median of 8.0 [IQR 6.0, 12.0] days following DVT therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, technical success of 100% was achieved for acute symptomatic proximal UEDVT therapies. AT technology allows for higher rates of treatment in a single session thereby minimizing a patient's risks of bleeding complications. Further research is needed to further define the role of this new technology in the treatment paradigm of UEDVT management.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
2024 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee.Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2024 March 3
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app