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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the additional catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and conventional treatment (CT) for treatment primary deep vein thrombosis. MethodsDatabases such as CNKI, WanFang Data, Pubmed, EMBASE.com, Medline, CBM, CSJD, CJFD, and the Cochrane Library were electronically searched from the date of their establishment to 30 June, 2013, and the relevant literatures and conference proceedings were also manually searched to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on comparison of additional CDT versus CT for primary deep vein thrombosis. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and accessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Then the meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software. Publication bias was assessed by STATA software. A meta-regression model was used to describe between study variability. ResultsTwo RCTs including 3 literatures contain 224 patients reporting data on safety and efficacy of CDT versus CT were included. There were no publication bias (Begg'S test, Z=1.02. P > 0.05;Egger'S test, t=0.98, P > 0.05). The results of meta-analysis showed that:in 6 months after surgery iliofemoral vein patency rate of CDT group was higher than that of CT group (OR=3.62, 95% CI:1.51-8.64, P=0.004), in 6 months after surgery CDT group with a lower rate than CT group of the iliofemoral vein occlusion and (or)venous reflux rate (OR=0.24, 95% CI:0.11-0.53, P=0.000), and the incidence rate of PTS in 24 months after surgery in CTD group was less than that of CT group (OR=0.55, 95% CI:0.31-0.96, P=0.040). There were no statistically significant of the major complications after surgery between CDT group and CT group (OR=1.34, 95% CI:0.12-15.69, P=0.810). But the incidence rates of minor complications and total complications after surgery in CT group were lower than those of CDT group (OR=13.67, 95% CI:4.08-45.83, P < 0.00 01 and OR=11.67, 95% CI:4.40-30.99, P < 0.000 01). ConclusionsCDT is a effective and positive way to treat early deep venous thrombosis especially in terms of the patency of vascular and prevent the occlusion and PTS. Due to the limitation of the included studies, large sample size, multicenter, and high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion, such as the ATTRACT Study. The intracavitary therapy could be applied to clinic combining individual conditions of patients.
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of low-(10 mg) and high-dose (20 mg) of recombinant tissue typeplasminogen activator (rt-PA) catheter-directed thrombolysis for lower limb ischemia by using meta-analysis. MethodsThe literatures of randomized clinical trials (RCT) concerning low-versus high-dose rt-PA catheter-directed thrombolysis for lower limb ischemia study were searched using the national and international electronic databases.The literatures were screened and quality evaluated according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and analyzed by using the Cochrane Center the RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 4 RCT studies, with a total of 360 patients (192 patients in low dose group and 168 patients in high-dose group) were included.No statistical difference were noted in low-versus high-dose group with regard to ankle-brachial index (RR=0.20, 95%CI=-0.43-0.02, P=0.07), 30 days amputation-free survival (RR=1.00, 95%CI=0.94-1.08, P=0.91), 6 months the probability of restenosis (RR=1.00, 95%CI=0.60-1.67, P=1.00), and the incidence of groin hematoma (< 5 cm, RR=1.24, 95%CI=0.56-2.77, P=0.59).But the incidence of bleeding and the incidence of stress ulcer in low-dose group were lower than those in high-dose group (RR=2.38, 95%CI=1.10-5.15, P=0.03;RR=2.49, 95%CI=1.21-5.13, P=0.01). ConclusionTwo doses of rt-PA treatment of limb ischemia similar efficacy, but the incidence of low-dose regimen of complications is significantly lower than the high dose regimen.
ObjectiveTo investigate the therapeutic evaluation of catheter-directed thrombolysis combined with multiple minimally invasive techniques of endovascular in the treatment of lower extremity atherosclerotic occlusive disease (ASO). MethodsClinical data of 64 ASO patients who were treated in our hospital from June 2011 to October 2014 were analyzed retrospectively. These patients were divided into two groups according to the therapies:33 patients were treated by catheter-directed thrombolysis combined with multiple minimally invasive techniques of endovascular (combination group), and the other 31 patients were only treated by multiple minimally invasive techniques of endovascular (intervention group). Comparison of the clinical indexes was performed between the 2 groups, including vascular patency rate, stent implantation rate, operation time, ankle-brachial index (ABI), saturation of blood oxygen (SO2) of toes, temperature of foot skin, amputation rate, and hospitalization expense. ResultsIn the same group (combination group and intervention group), compared with the time point of before operation, the clinical indexes of the ABI, SO2 of toes, and temperature of foot skin were higher after operation (P<0.05). At the same time point of before or after operation, there were no significant difference between the 2 groups in ABI, SO2 of toes, and temperature of foot skin (P>0.05). The vascular patency rate of combination group was higher than that of intervention group[97.0% (32/33) vs. 83.9% (26/31)], P<0.05. But the stent implantation rate[18.2% (6/33) vs. 64.5% (20/31)], amputation rate[3.0% (1/33) vs. 16.1% (5/31)], operative time[(2.0±0.5) h vs. (4.0±1.1) h], and hospitalization expense of patients who got successful limb salvage[(8 500±1 200) yuan vs. (34 000±2 100) yuan] of combination group were all lower or shorter than those of intervention group (P<0.05). After operation, there were no complication happened in the patients who got successful limb salvage of combination group (n=32) and intervention group (n=26). In postoperative 6 months, the lower extremity arteries in patients who got successful limb salvage of combination group and intervention group were all examined by color ultrasonography, and they were unblocked. The lower extremity arteries of the patients with stent implantation in the 2 groups suffered with no obvious stenosis or occlusion. ConclusionsCatheter-directed thrombolysis combined with multiple minimally invasive techniques of endovascular can become one of the surgical treatment methods for ASO, which characterized by minimally invasive operation, effective treatment, and low cost.
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.