The Long-Term Prognosis of Endovascular Thrombectomy in Patients with Acute Left Iliofemoral Vein Thrombosis Combined with Left Iliac Vein Compression

Dafang Liu,Sheng Wang,Yaoguo Yang,Liang Zhao,Jie Zhang,Zhong Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2024.09.056
2024-10-16
Abstract:Background: This study investigated the long-term outcomes of different thrombus removal methods in patients with acute left iliofemoral vein thrombosis (IFDVT) accompanied by left iliac vein compression (LIVC). Methods: This was a single-center cohort study. 240 patients with acute left-sided IFDVT complicated by LIVC were categorized based on their treatment approach into 2 groups: those receiving anticoagulation alone with no pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis applied (No-PCDT group) and those undergoing anticoagulation combined with pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT group). The PCDT group was further divided into 3 subgroups: anticoagulation combined with percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT group), anticoagulation combined with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT group), and anticoagulation combined with both PMT and catheter-directed thrombolysis (PMT + CDT group). The incidence of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) was assessed using Villalta scores and Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS). Patients were followed up for 24 months to compare long-term outcomes. Results: The No-PCDT group consisted of 123 individuals, while the PCDT group comprised 117, with 36 in the CDT subgroup, 41 in the PMT subgroup, and 40 in the PMT + CDT subgroup. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 24 months. The PCDT group was associated with a reduced incidence of PTS and a lower risk of high VCSS (Villalta scale ≥5 or presence of ulcer: 22% PCDT vs. 39% No-PCDT; odds ratio [OR], 0.446; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.253-0.787; P = 0.005; and VCSS ≥ 4: 22% PCDT vs. 34% No-PCDT; OR, 0.551; 95% CI, 0.311-0.978; P = 0.042). Among the 3 subgroups of PCDT cohort, compared to the CDT group, the PMT group showed a decreased incidence of PTS and a lower risk of high VCSS (Villalta scale ≥ 5 or ulcer: 12% PMT vs. 39% CDT; OR, 0.218; 95% CI, 0.069-0.690; P = 0.010; and VCSS ≥ 4: 12% PMT vs. 36% CDT; OR, 0.246; 95% CI, 0.077-0.781; P = 0.017). The PMT + CDT group also demonstrated a reduced incidence of PTS (18% PMT + CDT vs. 39% CDT; OR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.116-0.958; P = 0.041) compared to the CDT group, but did not show a significant reduction in the risk of high VCSS (20% PMT + CDT vs. 36% CDT; P = 0.121). Compared to the PMT group, the PMT + CDT group did not significantly reduce the incidence of PTS (12% PMT vs. 18% PMT + CDT; P = 0.504) or the rate of high VCSS (12% PMT vs. 20% PMT + CDT; P = 0.343). Conclusions: In patients with acute left IFDVT complicated by LIVC, PMT may serve as a more efficacious method for thrombus removal compared to CDT and combined PMT + CDT in reducing both the incidence of PTS and the risk of high VCSS.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?