Calf deep veins are safe and feasible accesses for the endovascular treatment of acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.

This study was designed to assess the optimal access route for the endovascular treatment of acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis who underwent endovascular treatment from February 2009 to December 2020. Patients underwent non-direct calf deep vein puncture (NDCDVP) from February 2009 to December 2011 and direct calf deep vein puncture (DCDVP) from January 2012 to December 2020. Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) was used to treat all patients in the NDCDVP group, whereas patients in the DCDVP group were treated with CDT or the AngioJet rhyolitic thrombectomy system. In patients exhibiting iliac vein compression syndrome, the iliac vein was dilated and implanted with a stent. Technical success rates and perioperative complication rates were compared between these two treatment groups. The NDCDVP group included 83 patients (40 males, 43 females) with a mean age of 55 ± 16 years, while the DCDVP group included 487 patients (231 males. 256 females) with a mean age of 56 ± 15 years. No significant differences were observed between these groups with respect to any analyzed clinical characteristics. The technical success rates in the NDCDVP and DCDVP groups were 96.4 and 98.2%, respectively (P > 0.05). In the NDCDVP group, the small saphenous vein (SSV)or great saphenous vein (GSV)were the most common access routes (77.1%, 64/83), whereas the anterior tibial vein (ATV) was the most common access route in the DCDVP group (78.0%, 380/487), followed by the posterior tibial vein (PTV) and peroneal vein (PV)(15.6% and 6.4%, respectively). Relative to the NDCDVP group, more patients in the DCDVP group underwent the removal of deep vein clots below the knee (7.2% [6/83] vs. 24.2% [118/487], P < 0.001). Moreover, relative to the NDCDVP group, significantly lower complication rates were evident in the DCDVP group (local infection: 10.8% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001; local hematoma: 15.7% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001). The position change rate was also significantly lower in the DCDVP group relative to the NDCDVP group (0% [0/487] vs. 60.2% [50/83], P < 0.001). The calf deep veins (CDVs) represent a feasible and safe access route for the endovascular treatment of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.

Acute right extremity deep vein thrombosis and left-sided inferior vena cava thrombosis treated by percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) combined with catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT): A case report.

INTRODUCTION: Left-sided inferior vena cava (IVC) is an uncommon condition with a prevalence rate of 0.2% to 0.5%. Most of them remain asymptomatic and are discovered incidentally. The patient condition in this case is critical, and conventional procedures are not applicable. The surgical approach being considered is innovative, but it carries significant risks and uncertain therapeutic efficacy. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 42-year-old male presented with acute right lower extremity pain with swelling for 2 days. DIAGNOSIS: The patient was subsequently diagnosed with acute right lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, inferior vena cava thrombosis, and a left-sided IVC. INTERVENTIONS: Based on the treatment guidelines for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. OUTCOMES: We successfully cured him with percutaneous mechanic thrombectomy (PMT) combined with catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT). CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: The relatively low incidence of left-sided IVC does not diminish the significance of its identification. PMT combined with CDT is a safe way to treat acute thrombosis. It provides a new approach for similar patients in the future.

A Retrospective Study Comparing Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy with Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety between pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (PMT) and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the context of acute lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (LEDVT). METHODS: A retrospective review of our institution's patient database spanning from February 2011 to December 2019 was performed to identify cases of acute LEDVT. The patients were categorized into 2 distinct groups based on the thrombolytic interventions administered: the PMT group, specifically denoting PMT with AngioJet in our investigation, and the CDT group. Comprehensive data sets encompassing patient demographics, risk factors, procedural specifics, thrombolysis grading, and complications were collected. Subsequent follow-up evaluations at the 2-year mark posttreatment included assessments of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) and the quality of life. RESULTS: Among the 348 patients identified (mean age: 50.12 ± 15.87 years; 194 females), 200 underwent CDT during the early stage (2011 to 2017), while 148 received PMT between 2017 and 2019. Baseline data between the 2 groups exhibited no statistically significant differences. Thrombus scores significantly decreased in both cohorts posttherapy (each P < 0.001).Patients subjected to PMT demonstrated higher thrombolysis rates (77.35 ± 9.44% vs. 50.85 ± 6.72%), reduced administration of the thrombolytic agent urokinase [20 (20€20) vs. 350 (263€416), P < 0.001], larger limb circumference differences (above the knee: 6.03 ± 1.76 cm vs. 4.51 ± 1.82 cm, P < 0.001; below the knee: 2.90 ± 1.16 cm vs. 2.51 ± 0.90 cm, P < 0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (7.19 ± 3.11 days vs. 12.33 ± 4.77 days, P < 0.001). However, the PMT group exhibited a higher decline in hemoglobin levels (13.41 ± 10.59 g/L vs. 10.88 ± 11.41 g/L, P = 0.038) and an increase in creatinine levels [9.58 (2.32€15.82) umol/L vs. 4.53 (2.87€6.08) umol/L, P < 0.001] compared to the CDT group. No statistically significant differences were observed in the numbers of balloon angioplasty, stent implantation (each P > 0.050), and minor and major complications between the 2 groups. At the 1-year follow-up, PTS occurred in 13.51% of the PMT group compared to 26% of the CDT group (P = 0.025), with a higher incidence of moderate-severe PTS in the CDT group (8% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.036). At the 2-year follow-up, PTS was observed in 16.2% of the PMT group and 31.5% in the CDT group, P = 0.004. Preoperative and postoperative D-values of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary and SF-36 Mental Component Summary showed no statistically significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: In our institutional experience, both PMT and CDT have proven to be effective and safe therapeutic approaches for managing acute LEDVT. PMT, in particular, demonstrated superior efficacy in achieving thrombosis resolution and mitigating the risk of PTS, affirming its role as a favorable intervention in this clinical context.

The external jugular vein is a feasible and safe alternative access for retrieval of inferior vena cava filter.

PURPOSE: The purpose is to analyze whether the external jugular vein (EJV) is a feasible and safe alternative access for the retrieval IVCFs designed for the jugular approach. METHODS: This study was designed as a nonrandomized, controlled study. The patients were divided into two groups: the IJV or EJV access groups. All operations were performed by the vascular surgery team. The main outcome was the technical success rate. The secondary outcomes included (1) the IVCF retrieval rate; (2) the time required to puncture the access vein (min); (3) the number of punctures required for access, and other aspects. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were recruited for IVCF retrieval. Seventeen patients refused to join this trial, leaving 58 patients in the IJV group and 44 patients in the EJV group. In the IJV group, technical success was not achieved in one patient who started in the EJV group and was transferred to the IJV group. There was no significant difference in age, comorbidities, or technical success rate between the two groups. Significant differences were observed in puncture time (min), number of punctures, and inadvertent puncture of the carotid artery. All of the patients were discharged 1 or 2 days after the operation. CONCLUSION: EJV is safe and feasible alternative access for the retrieval of IVCFs that are designed for jugular approaches.