Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy for Upper Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis represents (UEDVT) 2-3% of all deep vein thrombosis. Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) was replaced largely by pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (PMT) in our institution. In this study we compared the immediate and 1-year results as well as the total hospital costs between CDT and PMT in the treatment of UEDVT. METHODS: From 2006 to 2013, 55 patients with UEDVT were treated with either CDT or PMT at Helsinki University Hospital. Of them, 43 underwent thoracoscopic rib resection later to relieve phlebography-confirmed vein compression. This patient cohort was prospectively followed up with repeated phlebographies. CDT was performed to 24 patients, and 19 had PMT with a Trellis™ device. Clinical evaluation and vein patency assessment were performed with either phlebography or ultrasound 1 year after the thrombolysis. Primary outcomes were immediate technical success, 1-year vein patency, and costs of the initial treatment. RESULTS: The immediate overall technical success rate, defined as recanalization of the occluded vein and removal of the fresh thrombus, was 91.7% in the CDT group and 100% in the PMT group (n.s.). The median thrombolytic time was significantly longer in CDT patients than that in PMT patients (21.1 vs. 0.33 hr, P < 0.00001). There were no procedure-related complications. The 1-year primary assisted patency rate was similar in both the groups (91.7% and 94.7%). There were no recurrences of clinical DVT. The hospital costs for the acute period were significantly lower in the PMT group than those in the CDT group (medians: 11,476 € and 5,975 € in the CDT and PMT groups, respectively [P < 0.00001]). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical results of the treatment of UEDVT with CDT or PMT were similar. However, PMT required shorter hospital stay and less intensive surveillance, leading to lower total costs.

Comparison of intensive versus standard hemodialysis central venous catheter dysfunction protocol using rt-PA: a quality assurance initiative.

PURPOSE: Catheter locking solutions such as recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) are used to treat and prevent clotting of hemodialysis (HD) catheters during HD treatments and the interdialytic period. However, evidence to guide the use of rt-PA for catheter dysfunction is limited. METHODS: We evaluated outcomes using two catheter dysfunction protocols in a cohort of consecutive prevalent dialysis patients (Jan 2013 to Sep 2014) undergoing HD with a tunneled catheter. In the intensive protocol, rt-PA was administered to all catheters based on blood flow and/or line reversal. In the standard protocol, rt-PA administration was based only on blood flow. The primary outcome was the rate of rt-PA use for catheter malfunction (rt-PA treatment days/1000 total line days; [TLD]). Secondary outcomes included the cost of rt-PA/TLD and the rate of catheter-related bacteremia. RESULTS: There were 26 and 35 patients managed by the intensive and standard protocols, respectively. The rate of rt-PA use was 52/1000 TLD (intensive) versus 39/1000 TLD (standard) (rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.52 CI, p<0.001). The rate of bacteremia was 0.43 and 0.22/1000 TLD for the intensive and standard protocols, respectively (p = 0.491). The cost of rt-PA was CDN $5.58 and CDN $6.15 per TLD for the intensive protocol and standard protocol groups (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Managing catheter dysfunction based on line reversal and blood flow as opposed to only blood flow was associated with a higher rate of rt-PA use, but at a reduced overall cost.