Abstract:Standard treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) aims to reduce immediate complications. Use of thrombolytic clot removal strategies (i.e. thrombolysis (clot dissolving drugs), with or without additional endovascular techniques), could reduce the long‐term complications of post‐thrombotic syndrome (PTS) including pain, swelling, skin discolouration, or venous ulceration in the affected leg. This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004. To assess the effects of thrombolytic clot removal strategies and anticoagulation compared to anticoagulation alone for the management of people with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limb. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 21 April 2020. We also checked the references of relevant articles to identify additional studies. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining thrombolysis (with or without adjunctive clot removal strategies) and anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone for acute DVT. We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We pooled data using a fixed‐effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random‐effects model. The primary outcomes of interest were clot lysis, bleeding and post thrombotic syndrome. Two new studies were added for this update. Therefore, the review now includes a total of 19 RCTs, with 1943 participants. These studies differed with respect to the thrombolytic agent, the doses of the agent and the techniques used to deliver the agent. Systemic, loco‐regional and catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) strategies were all included. For this update, CDT interventions also included those involving pharmacomechanical thrombolysis. Three of the 19 included studies reported one or more domain at high risk of bias. We combined the results as any (all) thrombolysis interventions compared to standard anticoagulation. Complete clot lysis occurred more frequently in the thrombolysis group at early follow‐up (RR 4.75; 95% CI 1.83 to 12.33; 592 participants; eight studies) and at intermediate follow‐up (RR 2.42; 95% CI 1.42 to 4.12; 654 participants; seven studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Two studies reported on clot lysis at late follow‐up with no clear benefit from thrombolysis seen at this time point (RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 62.63; two studies). No differences between strategies (e.g. systemic, loco‐regional and CDT) were detected by subgroup analysis at any of these time points (tests for subgroup differences: P = 0.41, P = 0.37 and P = 0.06 respectively). Those receiving thrombolysis had increased bleeding complications (6.7% versus 2.2%) (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.78; 1943 participants, 19 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). No differences between strategies were detected by subgroup analysis (P = 0.25). Up to five years after treatment, slightly fewer cases of PTS occurred in those receiving thrombolysis; 50% compared with 53% in the standard anticoagulation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93; 1393 participants, six studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). This was still observed at late follow‐up (beyond five years) in two studies (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73; 211 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). We used subgroup analysis to investigate if the level of DVT (iliofemoral, femoropopliteal or non‐specified) had an effect on the incidence of PTS. No benefit of thrombolysis was seen for either iliofemoral or femoropopliteal DVT (six studies; test for subgroup differences: P = 0.29). Systemic thrombolysis and CDT had similar levels of effectiveness. Studies of CDT included four trials in femoral and iliofemoral DVT, and results from these are consistent with those from trials of systemic thrombolysis in DVT at other levels of occlusion. Complete clot lysis occurred more frequently after thrombolysis (with or without additional clot removal strategies) and PTS incidence was slightly reduced. Bleeding complications also increased with thrombolysis, but this risk has decreased over time with the use of stricter exclusion criteria of studies. Evidence suggests that systemic administration of thrombolytics and CDT have similar effectiveness. Using GRADE, we judged the evidence to be of moderate‐certainty, due to many trials having small numbers of participants or events, or both. Future studies are needed to investigate treatment regimes in terms of agent, dose and adjunctive clot removal methods; prioritis -Abstract Truncated-

Randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis

Current Evidence for Endovascular Therapies in the Management of Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis

Catheter-Directed Interventions for the Treatment of Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis

Invited Review for J Vasc Surg Venous and Lymphatic Disorders The Role and Principles of Stenting in Acute Iliofemoral Thrombosis

A Review of the Effectiveness and Safety of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Venous Thromboembolism

Interventional therapy for venous thromboembolism

Diagnosis and Treatment of Lower Extremity Venous Thromboembolism: A Review

Comparison of anticoagulation vs mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis

Effectiveness and safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis in conjunction with percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis: A meta-analysis

Thrombolytic strategies versus standard anticoagulation for acute deep vein thrombosis of the lower limb.

Acute Venous Iliofemoral Thrombosis: Early Surgical Thrombectomy Is Effective and Durable

Comparative Outcomes of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis versus AngioJet Pharmaco-mechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Treatment of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis

Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Protocols for Deep Venous Thrombosis of the Lower Extremities-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Comparative Outcomes of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus AngioJet Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Treatment of Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis.

Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis: An Update Based on the Revised AWMF S2k Guideline

Novel Challenges and Therapeutic Options for Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis

Risk factors and classification of reintervention following deep venous stenting for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis

Anticoagulation in Patients with Isolated Distal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Bringing the Puzzle Together

Antithrombotic Therapy after Deep Venous Intervention

Venous Interventions: Controversies in the Management of Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis and the Role of the Interventional Radiologist

A systematic review on the use of deep venous stenting for acute venous thrombosis of the lower limb