Objective To investigate the feasibility and efficacy of transcatheter directed thrombolysis （TDT） approach in treatment for deep venous thrombosis （DVT） of lower limbs and as compared with trans-dorsal pedis vein thrombolysis （TPVT） approach. Methods The clinical data of 437 patients with acute DVT （184 males and 253 females） at the age of （43±12） years （range 19-76 years） from July 2008 to January 2012 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were analyzed retrospectively. Patients in the group TDT received TDT were 293 cases， 32 inferior vena cava filters were implanted. Patients in the group TPVT received TPVT were 65 cases， 4 inferior vena cava filters were implanted. Results The resolution time of thrombus in the group TDT was shorter than that in the group TPVT （6 d versus 9 d， P＜0.05）. The circumference difference of leg or upper leg before and after treatment in the TDT group was significantly greater than that in the TPVT group （P＜0.05）. The rate of venous patency was （65.2±15.4）% and preservation rate of valvular function was （78.2±12.6）% in the group TDT， and which was （63.8±16.3）% and （91.1±10.7）% in the group TPVT， respectively. The differences of venous patency rate was not statistically significant（P＞0.05） between two groups， but the prevervation rate of valvular function was significant difference （P＜0.05） .Hematomas in 3 cases and gross hematuria in 4 cases were observed， and displacement of inferior vena cava filter occurred in 1 patient in the group TDT. The gums bleed or gross hematuria in 5 cases were observed in the group TPVT. Conclusions Both TDT and TPVT can effectively relieve symptoms. TDT can shorten the course of disease， but itincreases functional damage of the deep vein valvular.
目的探讨经腘静脉置溶栓导管灌注溶栓治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成（DVT）的临床应用价值。方法对28例急性DVT患者（其中2例合并肺动脉栓塞）在超声引导下经患肢腘静脉穿刺置入溶栓导管至髂、股静脉血栓中进行溶栓治疗，并对溶栓效果进行分析。 结果全组患者溶栓后症状明显改善，下肢肿胀消退，肺部症状缓解。溶栓后患、健侧大腿周径差〔(1.72±1.23) cm〕明显小于溶栓前〔(5.47±1.29) cm〕,差异有统计学意义(t=12.14，Plt;0.01)， 患肢大腿消肿率为91.58%; 溶栓后患、健侧小腿周径差〔(1.55±0.77) cm〕也明显小于溶栓前〔(5.04±1.32) cm〕，差异有统计学意义（t=13.81，Plt;0.01)，患肢小腿消肿率为84.92%。溶栓后静脉通畅评分〔(4.34±3.55)分〕明显低于溶栓前〔(15.23±4.64) 分〕，差异有统计学意义(t=6.42，Plt;0.01 )，溶栓后静脉平均通畅率为87.43%。 2例合并肺动脉栓塞患者中，1例栓子完全溶解，1例大部分溶解。 所有患者均无严重并发症。 25例患者获随访，随访1～12个月（平均7.16个月），无一例出现血栓再发。结论经腘静脉置管溶栓治疗急性DVT是一种安全、有效的治疗方法。
Objective To investigate the short-term result of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) in treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in lower extremity. Methods A total of 289 cases of acute DVT in lower extremity who got treatment in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital Group Suqian City People’s Hospital and Xuzhou Central Hospital from March 2013 to December 2014 were enrolled prospectively, and of them, 125 cases of system thrombolysis (ST) group underwent ST, 164 cases of CDT group underwent inferior vena cava filter placement (IVCF)+CDT. Clinical effect was compared between the 2 groups. Results Clinical symptoms of all cases were obviously relieved, and limb swelling was significantly reduced. Of the CDT group, 73 cases presented iliac vein compression syndrome (IVCS), and 43 cases of them underwent the percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stent implantation. In CDT group, there was 1 case complicated by catheter displacement, 10 cases suffered from puncture site ecchymosis, 3 cases suffered from hematuria. In ST group, there was 1 case suffered from pulmonary embolism (PE), 14 cases suffered from bleeding gums, 22 cases suffered from hematuria, 3 cases suffered from skin and mucosa petechia, and 2 cases suffered from melena (didn’t need transfusion). The morbidity of ST group was higher than that of CDT group (P=0.002). There were 18 cases suffered from recurrence in ST group, 15 cases suffered from recurrence in CDT group, but there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate between the 2 groups (P=0.786). In addition, the dosage of urokinase, thrombolysis time, blood vessel patency score, thigh circumference after treatment, and calf circumference after treatment in ST group were all higher than those of CDT group (P<0.050), but the Villalta score in ST group was lower than that of CDT group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in hospital stay (P=0.383). Conclusion For acute DVT in lower extremity, CDT has a superior short-term outcome with safety and feasibility.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus anti-coagulation (AC) for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, WanFang Data and CNKI databases to collect randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about CDT versus AC for DVT from inception to March 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of 5 RCTs and 989 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the two group in incidence of post-thrombotic syndrome (RR=0.73, 95%CI 0.49 to 1.09, P=0.13), iliofemoral venous patency rate (RR=2.57, 95%CI 0.59 to 11.24, P=0.21), bleeding (RR=2.03, 95%CI 0.50 to 8.28, P=0.32), severe bleeding (RR=1.77, 95%CI 0.91 to 3.42, P=0.09) and recurrence rate of venous thromboembolism (RR=1.00, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.36, P=0.99). However, the incidence of moderate-severe PTS decreased in CDT group was lower than that in the control group (RR=0.70, 95%CI 0.53 to 0.92, P=0.01). ConclusionsCompared with the control group, catheter-directed thrombolysis does not reduce the incidence of PTS and VTE recurrence rate, cannot improve the long-term patency of the iliofemoral vein, yet can prevent the occurrence of moderate to severe PTS. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.