A Retrospective Study Comparing Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy with Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis
XiXi Min,Wei Chen,Xiong Zeng,Xiande Zeng,Xianhua Zhu,KangHui Dai,ZhiNan Ju,WeiMin Zhou,Jiehua Qiu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2024.02.022
Abstract:Background: This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety between pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (PMT) and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the context of acute lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (LEDVT). Methods: A retrospective review of our institution's patient database spanning from February 2011 to December 2019 was performed to identify cases of acute LEDVT. The patients were categorized into 2 distinct groups based on the thrombolytic interventions administered: the PMT group, specifically denoting PMT with AngioJet in our investigation, and the CDT group. Comprehensive data sets encompassing patient demographics, risk factors, procedural specifics, thrombolysis grading, and complications were collected. Subsequent follow-up evaluations at the 2-year mark posttreatment included assessments of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) and the quality of life. Results: Among the 348 patients identified (mean age: 50.12 ± 15.87 years; 194 females), 200 underwent CDT during the early stage (2011 to 2017), while 148 received PMT between 2017 and 2019. Baseline data between the 2 groups exhibited no statistically significant differences. Thrombus scores significantly decreased in both cohorts posttherapy (each P < 0.001).Patients subjected to PMT demonstrated higher thrombolysis rates (77.35 ± 9.44% vs. 50.85 ± 6.72%), reduced administration of the thrombolytic agent urokinase [20 (20€20) vs. 350 (263€416), P < 0.001], larger limb circumference differences (above the knee: 6.03 ± 1.76 cm vs. 4.51 ± 1.82 cm, P < 0.001; below the knee: 2.90 ± 1.16 cm vs. 2.51 ± 0.90 cm, P < 0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (7.19 ± 3.11 days vs. 12.33 ± 4.77 days, P < 0.001). However, the PMT group exhibited a higher decline in hemoglobin levels (13.41 ± 10.59 g/L vs. 10.88 ± 11.41 g/L, P = 0.038) and an increase in creatinine levels [9.58 (2.32€15.82) umol/L vs. 4.53 (2.87€6.08) umol/L, P < 0.001] compared to the CDT group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the numbers of balloon angioplasty, stent implantation (each P > 0.050), and minor and major complications between the 2 groups. At the 1-year follow-up, PTS occurred in 13.51% of the PMT group compared to 26% of the CDT group (P = 0.025), with a higher incidence of moderate-severe PTS in the CDT group (8% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.036). At the 2-year follow-up, PTS was observed in 16.2% of the PMT group and 31.5% in the CDT group, P = 0.004. Preoperative and postoperative D-values of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary and SF-36 Mental Component Summary showed no statistically significant between-group differences. Conclusions: In our institutional experience, both PMT and CDT have proven to be effective and safe therapeutic approaches for managing acute LEDVT. PMT, in particular, demonstrated superior efficacy in achieving thrombosis resolution and mitigating the risk of PTS, affirming its role as a favorable intervention in this clinical context.