Objective To explore the therapeutic effect of catheter-directed thrombolysis combined with vena cava filter on deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of lower extremity.Methods The clinical data of 65 patients with DVT of lower extremities from January 2008 to August 2009 were analyzed retrospectively, whose course of diseases were not more than 7 d and clinical type included central type and mixed type. Thirty-two cases were treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis combined with vena cava filter, while administrating treatment of anticoagulation and activating blood circulation to dissipate blood stasis, which were named as study group. Thirty-three cases were treated traditionally with thrombolysis, anticoagulation, and activating blood circulation to dissipate blood stasis, which were named as control group. The course of therapy was continued 10-14 d, then the efficacy in two groups patients was evaluated. Results It was (7.35±1.42) cm that circumference difference before treatment between affected extremties and unaffected extremties in study group, which of 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment was (4.21±1.12) cm， (2.87±0.98) cm, and (1.22±1.02) cm, respectively. Circumference difference between before and after treatment had significant difference in study group (Plt;0.01). It was (6.97±1.27) cm that circumference difference before treatment between affected extremties and unaffected extremties in control group, which of 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment was (5.72±1.31) cm, (4.58±0.88) cm, and (3.18±1.24) cm, respectively. Circumference difference between before treatment and 3, 7, and 14 d after treatment had significant difference in control group (Plt;0.05 or Plt;0.01). Circumference difference before treatment in two groups had no significant difference (Pgt;0.05). Circumference difference after treatment at different time points in two groups was significantly different, respectively (Plt;0.01). Circumference difference after treatment at different time points in study group was significantly less than that in control group, respectively (Plt;0.01). After 14 d, complete recanalization rate （71.88%, 23/32） and cure rate (71.88%, 23/32) of iliofemoral vein in study group were significant higher than that (36.36%, 12/33) in control group (Plt;0.01). No pulmonary embolism occurred. Conclusion In terms of ideal therapy targets of DVT of lower extremity, the catheterdirected thrombolysis combined with vena cava filter is obviously superior to traditional thrombolysis treatment.
目的 探讨经大隐静脉-穿通支静脉入路行深静脉置管溶栓术(catheter-directed thrombolysis，CDT)治疗混合型下肢深静脉血栓形成(deep venous thrombosis，DVT）的临床疗效。 方法 对42例急性混合型下肢DVT患者，经踝大隐静脉-穿通支静脉入路，将溶栓导管置入深静脉行CDT治疗。回顾性分析该42例患者的临床资料，评价其溶栓疗效。 结果 42例患者均成功经大隐静脉-穿通支静脉入路行CDT治疗。溶栓时间为5～7 d、(4.22±1.43) d；术后所有患者的肢体肿胀均明显好转；大腿周径差由术前的（7.76±1.72）cm缩减为术后的（2.21±0.91) cm（t=14.18，P＜0.01），小腿周径差由术前的（4.45±1.33）cm缩减为术后的(1.43±0.69）cm（t=11.92，P＜0.01），静脉通畅度评分由术前的12分降为术后的3分（Z=-3.03，P＜0.01）。术后发生穿刺处渗血2例，血尿2例，少量咯血1例。38例获访3～26个月，中位数为15个月。随访期间，1例发生支架远端重度狭窄，1例对侧下肢发生DVT。 结论 经大隐静脉-穿通支静脉入路行CDT治疗混合型下肢DVT，其操作简便，溶栓效率高，是临床值得推广的溶栓途径之一。
ObjectiveTo investigate the significance of catheter thrombolysis combined with one-stage iliac vein percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (or stent implantation) in the treatment of acute left lower extremity deep venous thrombosis secondary to Cockett syndrome.MethodsForty-one cases of Cockett syndrome complicated with acute left lower extremity deep vein thrombosis were retrospectively analyzed and summarized in our hospital from January 2016 to June 2019. Catheter directed thrombolysis was performed under the protection of filter, and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty or stent implantation was performed in the first stage of the iliac vein stenosis or occlusion after thrombolysis. Compared the circumference of upper and lower legs of 15 cm above and below patella of the healthy and affected limbs, before and after treatment, and analyzed the venous patency rate.ResultsThe average time of using thrombolytic catheter were (7±3) days, and the average dosage of urokinase was (358.32±69.38) ×104 U. A total of thirty-five Bard stents were implanted (35 cases), four cases underwent percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, and two cases gave up treatment. Before and after treatment, the circumference difference of the higher leg, the circumference difference of the lower leg, and the venous patency were significantly different before and after thrombolysis (P<0.01). The venous patency rate was 58%–75% in this group, and the average venous patency rate was (61±10)%. There was no severe bleeding complication occurred. Thirty-five patients were followed up for 3–26 months, the preservation rate of the valve was 82.86% (29/35), and the first patency rate of iliac vein was 100% (39/39). During the follow-up period, thrombosis recurred in one case of untreated iliac vein, and acute thrombosis in the right side of one case was caused by long iliac vein stent entering the inferior vena cava. No pulmonary embolism was found.ConclusionOn the basis of catheter thrombolysis, one stage removal of iliac vein obstruction in the treatment of acute left lower extremity deep venous thrombosis can relieve the clinical symptoms, reduce the recurrence rate of thrombosis, and reduce the occurrence of deep vein thrombosis syndrome after catheter thrombolysis.