Skip to main content
  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • Editorial Board
    • Meet the Editors
    • ATVB Journal History
    • General Statistics
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • Cover Art Award
    • ATVB Early Career Award
    • ATVB in Focus
    • Recent Brief Reviews of ATVB
    • Lecture Series
    • Collections
    • Recent Highlights of ATVB
    • Commentaries
    • Browse Abstracts
    • Insight into ATVB Authors
  • Resources
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Online Submission/Peer Review Site
    • Council on ATVB
    • Permissions and Rights Q&A
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
    • Author Reprints
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Advanced search

Header Publisher Menu

  • American Heart Association
  • Science Volunteer
  • Warning Signs
  • Advanced Search
  • Donate

Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology

  • My alerts
  • Sign In
  • Join

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About this Journal
    • Editorial Board
    • Meet the Editors
    • ATVB Journal History
    • General Statistics
  • All Issues
  • Subjects
    • All Subjects
    • Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • Basic, Translational, and Clinical Research
    • Critical Care and Resuscitation
    • Epidemiology, Lifestyle, and Prevention
    • Genetics
    • Heart Failure and Cardiac Disease
    • Hypertension
    • Imaging and Diagnostic Testing
    • Intervention, Surgery, Transplantation
    • Quality and Outcomes
    • Stroke
    • Vascular Disease
  • Browse Features
    • Cover Art Award
    • ATVB Early Career Award
    • ATVB in Focus
    • Recent Brief Reviews of ATVB
    • Lecture Series
    • Collections
    • Recent Highlights of ATVB
    • Commentaries
    • Browse Abstracts
    • Insight into ATVB Authors
  • Resources
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Online Submission/Peer Review Site
    • Council on ATVB
    • Permissions and Rights Q&A
    • AHA Guidelines and Statements
    • Customer Service and Ordering Information
    • Author Reprints
    • International Users
    • AHA Newsroom
  • AHA Journals
    • AHA Journals Home
    • Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology (ATVB)
    • Circulation
    • → Circ: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
    • → Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • → Circ: Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
    • → Circ: Heart Failure
    • Circulation Research
    • Hypertension
    • Stroke
    • Journal of the American Heart Association
DVT: A New Era in Anticoagulant Therapy

Indications for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Acute Proximal Deep Venous Thrombosis

Benjamin O. Patterson, Robert Hinchliffe, Ian M. Loftus, Matt M. Thompson, Peter J.E. Holt
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.200766
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2010;30:669-674
Originally published March 17, 2010
Benjamin O. Patterson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Robert Hinchliffe
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian M. Loftus
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matt M. Thompson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter J.E. Holt
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Jump to

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
Loading

Abstract

Deep vein thromboses (DVTs) cause significant morbidity and mortality in the general population. Oral anticoagulation therapy may reduce thrombus propagation but does not cause clot lysis and therefore does not prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) can be used to treat DVTs as an adjunct to medical therapy, but there is no consensus defining exact indications. Current evidence suggests that CDT can reduce clot burden and DVT recurrence and consequently prevents the formation of PTS compared with systemic anticoagulation. Appropriate indications include younger individuals with acute proximal thromboses, a long life expectancy, and relatively few comorbidities. Limb-threatening thromboses may also be treated with CDT, although the subsequent mortality remains high. A number of randomized controlled trials are currently under way comparing the longer-term outcomes of CDT compared with anticoagulation alone. Initial reports suggest that venous patency and valvular function are better maintained after CDT. The effectiveness of combined pharmacomechanical thrombectomy and the role of vena cava filters need to be investigated further before strong recommendations can be made. The reported short-term outcomes following catheter-based intervention for DVT are encouraging in selected patients. Further evidence is required to establish long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness.

  • anticoagulants
  • thrombolysis
  • thrombosis
  • catheter directed thrombolysis

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is the third most common cardiovascular pathology, after coronary artery disease and stroke. In the United Kingdom, 1 in 1000 people develop DVT each year. It is likely that the incidence of DVT will increase in the future because of an aging population and increasing exposure to risk factors for DVT, such as hospital admissions, oral contraceptives, long-distance travel, and obesity. A European group estimated that there are almost half a million cases of DVT, 300 000 cases of pulmonary embolism, and 370 000 venous thromboembolism related deaths across 6 European Union countries per annum among inpatients. It must be presumed that many of these events could have been prevented.1

This article accompanies the DVT Series that was published in the March 2010 issue.

Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a relatively common and highly significant sequel of DVT. Eighty percent of symptomatic DVTs are above the knee (proximal), with a cumulative incidence of PTS of 50% 2 years post-DVT.2 Severe PTS is reported in 50% of cases, and leg ulceration is present in up to 10% of patients. These conditions lead to reduced quality of life and disability. The mean age of patients affected is 56, and more than 50% of patients are of working age, meaning that DVT is costly to society in general.3 The cost of managing venous ulcers in the United Kingdom alone is £400 million per year.

PTS is caused by chronic venous hypertension secondary to venous reflux, venous obstruction, and valvular dysfunction. This manifests clinically as a painful, swollen, heavy leg and venous claudication. At the most severe end of the spectrum, PTS is associated with venous ulceration.4

PTS can be objectively defined using the Villalta score, which examines the severity of various clinical features.4 Recent research has shown that quality of life among patients with PTS is poorer than that among patients of similar age with other chronic conditions, such as arthritis, chronic lung disease, or diabetes. Severe PTS leads to such a poor quality of life that it is comparable to experiencing angina, cancer, or congestive heart failure.3

In addition to PTS and ulceration, some patients with proximal DVTs will develop pulmonary embolism. Patients with 1 DVT are also at increased risk of recurrence. An uncommon but significant complication of DVT is phlegmasia caerulea dolens. This is caused by thrombosis at a capillary level as a consequence of venous stasis and appears as a swollen, cyanotic limb. Venous infarction and compartment syndrome and limb loss may follow, and the associated mortality is high.5

Treatment Modalities

It has been shown that anticoagulation for 3 to 6 months and the use of graduated compression stockings for 2 years significantly reduces the incidence of PTS.2 Despite this, at 2 years after proximal DVT, up to 50% of patients will have evidence of PTS.6 A reason for this is that oral anticoagulation does not precipitate thrombolysis but stops thrombus propagation and protects against recurrence.7 It is thought that chronic venous hypertension secondary to valvular destruction leads to PTS. Therefore, if valvular function can be effectively preserved through early clot lysis, there might be benefits in terms of a reduced incidence of PTS.

Systemic thrombolysis had been investigated in trials to achieve this early lysis, but it was associated with unacceptably high rates of serious bleeding complications, such as retroperitoneal hematoma and intracranial hemorrhage, with relatively modest rates of thrombus clearance.8–10 Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) involves a more localized delivery of thrombolytic agents directly into the thrombus. This may be more effective in achieving local resolution and restoring venous patency while significantly reducing the risks of bleeding complications.

A Cochrane review compared thrombolysis with standard anticoagulation across 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 700 patients. The majority of these studies included only patients treated with systemic thrombolysis. Clot lysis was seen more frequently in early (relative risk, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.22 to 14.01) and late (relative risk, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.84 to 3.99) follow-up. The incidence of PTS was reduced significantly (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.94).11 A 50% reduction of relative risk (although not statistically significant) in the formation of lower limb ulcers was demonstrated. Bleeding complications were significantly higher (relative risk, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.88). The suggestion was that thrombolysis offered potential advantages but that indications were not clearly defined. In addition to 2 RCTs, there are several institutional cases series reporting the use of CDT and mechanical thrombectomy (Table 1). They display considerable variation in design and the combination of therapies used, but all convey the message that venous patency can often be restored in the short and long terms with catheter-delivered therapy. In addition, significant improvements in quality of life have also been demonstrated.6 Defining which groups of patients will benefit most from the use of this newer technology is one of the major challenges facing exponents of this technique.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Table 1. A Summary Previous Trials Investigating the Role of Catheter Delivered Therapy for DVT

Achieving Venous Patency

A 3-point scale has been proposed to define outcomes of therapy for DVT (Table 2),12 with grades II and III signifying at least 50% luminal patency postlysis. This is classed as a satisfactory therapeutic outcome. A recent report describing short-term follow-up results from the ongoing Norwegian CaVenT randomized control trial showed favorable patency rates when CDT was compared with anticoagulation and compression stockings.13 Grade II-III lysis was achieved in 40% of patients immediately postprocedure. After 6-months, iliofemoral patency was found in 64% of the CDT group and compared with 35% of the control group, giving an absolute risk reduction of 28% (95% CI: 9.7% to 46.7%; P=0.004). Venous obstruction was present in 20% of the CDT group and 49% of controls, representing an absolute risk reduction of 29% (95% CI: 20.0% to 38.0%; P=0004). Recently, a Scandinavian group has reported 50-month follow-up data on of a series of 103 limbs treated by DCT in a group of 101 highly selected patients. More than 82% of patients had patent veins with competent valves and no skin symptoms.14

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Table 2. Grade of Lysis Following Treatment of DVT (Adapted From Protack et al12)

Timing of CDT

The success of venous recanalization, preservation of valve function, and symptom relief may depend on the timing of therapy postthrombosis. These factors influence effectiveness of intervention and the subsequent incidence of PTS. Freshly formed thromboses respond better to thrombolysis than established, organized thromboses. It has been suggested that 10 days may be the optimal interval from onset of symptoms during which to instigate treatment15; however, the ATTRACT trial in the United States has used 14 days and the CaVenT trial has used 21 days as the cut-off for recruitment.16,17 This interval requires further definition through the results of these trials to determine the optimal time frame for intervention that will prevent valvular destruction and venous hypertension, which may result in an increase of the likelihood of longer-term sequalae.18–20

Percutaneous Mechanical Thrombectomy

Combining CDT and percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) devices has been attempted to try to improve early mechanical thrombus removal and promote lysis of remaining clot. Several devices exist to perform PMT, but the optimum design and outcomes are not known, despite encouraging early reports and case series. Devices include rotating sinusoidal dispersion wires (Trellis-8, Bacchus Vascular Inc, Santa Clara, CA); pulsatile saline jets (Angiojet, Possis Medical Inc, Minneapolis, MN); and low-energy high-frequency ultrasound (Ekos, Bothell, WA).21 A series of 43 patients with DVTs undergoing PMT within an average of 14 days of symptom onset recently reported short-term results with successful lysis 63% of clots after 1 session of PMT (greater than 50% clot lysis). One-third of patients had iliac stents deployed in conjunction with mechanical therapy. Freedom from DVT recurrence and reintervention was maintained in 95% of patients after 9 months. The ATTRACT trial will report on the merits of combined therapy in the future.16

Potential Complications

Many of the reported complications following CDT were related to hemorrhage, as may be expected. The US National Venous Registry reported infrequent but severe peri- and postprocedural complications that included intracranial hemorrhage (<1%); retroperitoneal hematoma (1%); and musculoskeletal, genitourinary, and gastrointestinal bleeds (3%).22 Most incidents of bleeding were relatively minor, such as that associated with the access site. Catheterization of access veins under ultrasound guidance has been shown to reduce these complications by avoiding multiple vessel punctures.23 In addition, aiming for the minimum infusion time to achieve the best results and minimizing the dose of thrombolytic agent reduces both local and systemic bleeding complications. The mechanical thrombectomy device might play a role in achieving this balance.

Some centers have reported an increased incidence of pulmonary embolism following percutaneous treatments, but this has not been supported by registry reports or trials data.24,25 Finally, with regard to mortality, the reported rate of mortality for patients undergoing CDT is less than 1%. Currently, patients are highly selected for CDT, so the true postprocedural mortality is unknown. This said, it is likely to remain less than 1% in routine practice.

Controversies

The practice of CDT remains variable between centers. The choice of thrombolytic agent, the use of adjunctive venous stenting, and inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are areas in which this variability becomes most apparent.

Endogenous serine protease inhibitors such as urokinase and recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-TPA) have replaced streptokinase as the agent of choice in systemic thrombolysis. r-TPA is the most effective and is likely to be associated with fewer side effects. Consequently, the major RCTs under way are using Alteplase in their protocols (Table 3), and this is being used with increasing regularity in clinical practice.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Table 3. A typical Protocol for Performing Thrombolysis in Cases of DVT

The use of IVC filters as an adjunct to CDT remains controversial. Many series report their use in selected cases. Situations where they may prove useful include those in which standard indications would apply, such as a patient developing a thrombosis while on effective anticoagulation or the presence of a contraindication to anticoagulation. Filters should not be used routinely, as CDT has not been shown to increase the rate of pulmonary embolism (PE). There remains insufficient evidence to determine whether IVC filters should be used for free-floating thrombus or thrombus extending into the IVC. We recommend that use of filters be decided through multidisciplinary team discussion on an individual case-by-case basis, and where possible, temporary filters should preferentially be used. In practice, we rarely use them.

Endovascular venous stent placement in conjunction with thrombolysis may improve patency rates in selected cases, particularly if abnormal anatomy is the underlying cause of DVTs. May-Thurner syndrome is the most common of these conditions; in this syndrome, the left common iliac vein is compressed by the overlying right common iliac artery, leading to both extrinsic compression and vessel damage because of the repeated trauma of the arterial pulse. Other causes include pelvic tumors, osteophytes, chronic urinary retention, iliac artery aneurysms, endometriosis, pregnancy, and uterine masses.26

A review of case series with 5 or more patients revealed an initial technical success rate of 87% to 100% and 1 year patency of between 80% and 100% (Table 4). Patent venous outflow at 2 years has been reported after combined CDT and stenting in 1 study.27–29 In 1 small series of May-Thurner patients, all those treated by CDT alone had evidence of rethrombosis on follow-up venogram, whereas only 11% of patients treated with CDT and stenting developed stent occlusion.28,30 Further research has shown that the use of thrombolysis without stent placement, in cases of May-Thurner, can lead to restenosis in up to 75% of patients in the short term.28,31 It should be noted that venous stents can induce long-term DVT recurrence because of low luminal flow rates. This may outweigh the apparent short-term benefits, but additional data are required. At present, not enough data exist to determine the exact indications for deployment of stents, but once again, the results of the randomized trials appear critical to provide clear answers.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Table 4. A Summary of Series Reporting Use of CDT and Venous Stent Placement in Patients With May-Thurner Syndrome

Cost-Effectiveness and Quality of Life

Systemic anticoagulation with subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin is easy to initiate, relatively convenient for patients, and inexpensive. As anticoagulation is still required after CDT, the procedural costs associated with CDT along with an inpatient admission will always be greater than for the outpatient management of oral anticoagulation alone.

This apparent drawback must be considered in the context of the economic burden of PTS and venous ulceration, not simply because of the utilization of hospital and community healthcare resources (which cost more than £400 million per year in the United Kingdom alone) but also in terms of lost opportunity costs. One study suggested that 81% of patients suffered loss of financial productivity post-DVT. This is of considerable interest in light of the fact that more than 50% of patients with proximal DVT are of working age.15

Health-related quality of life in patients receiving CDT has been shown to be improved in comparison with those treated with systemic anticoagulation alone at 16 and 22 months posttreatment.32 In addition, patients with proximal DVTs treated by CDT reported better functional scores and fewer symptoms of PTS than those undergoing systemic anticoagulation.12 These findings will be of importance in the cost-effectiveness analyses of the ongoing randomized trials.

Recommendations for Management

This review of the relevant literature suggests CDT can achieve superior clot lysis in the acute setting, with better long-term venous patency rates in comparison with anticoagulation alone. This may avoid the clinical sequelae of PTS and venous ulceration. The indications for CDT are based on a number of small RCTs, registry data, and institutional series and a variety of expert opinions.

Current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians suggest that CDT should be used in those with life expectancy >1 year, good functional status, extensive iliofemoral thrombosis, and presenting soon after the onset of symptoms >14 days (level 2B evidence). The guidelines also advocate the use of venous angioplasty and stenting in the presence of reversible causes of thrombosis and discuss the efficacy of dual therapy with pharmacomechanical therapy.12

Those most likely to benefit from CDT (Table 5) are individuals with a long life expectancy, as the reductions in PTS and ulceration are likely to be the most important benefits. These outcomes have a measurable incidence at 2 years postthrombosis, and so the differences in outcomes between medically treated patients and those with CDT might be most easily interpreted at this stage. Those patients of working age are likely to derive the most benefits at the lowest risk of intervention.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Table 5. Possible Indications for DVT Thrombolysis

Higher rates of PTS are seen with more proximal thrombi and in the absence of contraindications, CDT should be considered in these cases. This would include both iliofemoral and femoral vein thromboses. Adjunctive venous stenting is appropriate in cases in which there is an underlying anatomic abnormality.

Unfortunately, some groups of patients with proximal thrombosis would currently be excluded from management by CDT using currently published criteria (Table 6). This may include trauma victims or patients who have undergone recent surgery, although these patients may stand to gain most significantly from effective treatment of extensive thrombosis. The role for mechanical thrombectomy devices might lie in these patient subgroups. In individual cases, a combination of the focused delivery of thrombolytic agent with or without the addition of mechanical therapy may be not only safe but also highly effective.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Table 6. Contraindications for Thrombolysis

Oncology patients are at high risk of thromboembolism, and the mortality in this group is significantly higher than that of the general population following DVT. Life expectancy and the risk of hemorrhage (ie, likelihood of brain or liver metastases) must be considered and assessed before CDT. A full assessment would realistically include a current head and chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography scan to identify metastases. The current inclusion criteria for CDT may need to be broadened if more patient groups such as this are to benefit, but this is not likely to occur until the full benefit of CDT has been quantified in more selected subgroups of patients.

Given the high associated mortality of phlegmasia caerulea dolens and the lack of an effective alternative, CDT is probably justified in this patient group, despite a high mortality due to the underlying disease, and may lead to effective limb salvage in up to 100% of cases.12

Extensive, free-floating or IVC thromboses may be at high risk of causing pulmonary embolism. Timely reduction of clot burden using CDT would seem to offer a better chance of avoiding such events than simply relying on systemic anticoagulation to prevent their propagation. Whether IVC filters should be used remains an area of considerable debate.

The outcome of the CaVenT, ATTRACT, and the proposed United Kingdom-based RCTs should provide further guidance regarding exclusion and inclusion criteria for CDT (Table 7). Detailed health-economic analyses of the use of CDT and thrombectomy devices are required to establish the cost-effectiveness of this treatment. Finally, encouraging results regarding CDT in the management of DVTs should not detract from meticulous DVT prophylaxis in all at-risk patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup

Table 7. A Summary of Major Ongoing Trials Investigating the Role of Catheter Delivered Therapy for DVT

Conclusions

Venous thromboembolism is common and has a significant socioeconomic impact. The present therapeutic strategy in the form of oral anticoagulation does not prevent the PTS and venous ulceration, even when combined with elastic compression stockings.

CDT is effective in achieving clot lysis in acute thrombosis, and this may help to prevent PTS and subsequent ulceration. The incidence of serious complications is acceptable following these procedures. Patient selection is of importance to achieve maximum benefit at the lowest risk, and the reports of several ongoing RCTs are awaited to help define who will benefit most. Based on these trial results, the cost-effectiveness of CDT will be effectively determined. This is needed before the routine use of CDT can be advocated.

Acknowledgments

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • Received on: December 2, 2009; final version accepted on: February 2, 2010.

References

  1. ↵
    Cohen AT, Agnelli G, Anderson FA, Arcelus JI, Bergqvist D, Brecht JG, Greer IA, Heit JA, Hutchinson JL, Kakkar AK, Mottier D, Oger E, Samama MM, Spannagl M. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Europe: the number of VTE events and associated morbidity and mortality. Thromb Haemost. 2007; 98: 756–764.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Prins MH, Frulla M, Marchiori A, Bernardi E, Tormene D, Mosena L, Pagnan A, Girolami A. Below-knee elastic compression stockings to prevent the post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 249–256.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Kahn SR, Shbaklo H, Lamping DL, Holcroft CA, Shrier I, Miron MJ, Roussin A, Desmarais S, Joyal F, Kassis J, Solymoss S, Desjardins L, Johri M, Ginsberg JS. Determinants of health-related quality of life during the 2 years following deep vein thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost. 2008; 6: 1105–1112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Kahn SR, Partsch H, Vedantham S, Prandoni P, Kearon C, on behalf of the Subcommitee on the Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Definition of post-thrombotic syndrome of the leg for use in clinical investigations: a recommendation for standardization. J Thromb Haemost. 2009; 7: 879–838.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Weaver F, Meacham P, Adkins R, Dean R. Phlegmasia cerulea dolens: therapeutic considerations. South Med J. 1998; 81: 306–312.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    Kahn S, Ginsberg J. The post-thrombotic syndrome: current knowledge, controversies, and directions for future research. Blood Rev. 2002; 16: 155–165.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Buller H, Agnelli G, Hull R, Hyers TM, Prins MH, Raskob GE. Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembloic disease: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004; 126: 401S–428S.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Meissner AJ, Misiak A, Ziemski JM, Scharf R, Rudowski W, Huszcza S Kucharski W, Wisławski S. Hazards of thrombolytic therapy in deep vein thrombosis. Br J Surg. 1987; 74: 991–993.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    Comerota AJ, Aldridge SC. Thrombolytic therapy for deep venous thrombosis: a clinical review. Can J Surg. 1993; 36: 359–364.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    Schweiter J, Kirch W, Koch R, Elix H, Hellner G, Forkmann L, Graf A. Short and long-term results after thrombolytic treatment of deep venous thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1343.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Watson L, Armon M. Thrombolysis for acute deep venous thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; 18: Art No. CD002783.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    Protack C, Bakken A, Patel N, Saad W, Waldman D, Davies M. Long-term outcomes of catheter directed thrombolysis for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis without prophylactic inferior vena cava filter placement. J Vasc Surg. 2007; 45: 992–997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Enden T, Klow NE, Sandvik L, Slagsvold CE, Ghanima W, Hafsahl G Holme PA, Holmen LO, Njaastad AM, Sandbaek G, Sandset PM. CaVenT study group. Catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. anticoagulant therapy alone in deep vein thrombosis: results of an open randomized, controlled trial reporting on short-term patency. J Thromb Haemost. 2009; 7: 1268–1275.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Baekgaard N, Broholm R, Just S, Jorgensen M, Jensen L. Long-term results using catheter-directed thrombolysis in 103 lower limbs with acute iliofemoral venous thrombosis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010; 39: 112–117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Kearon C, Kahn S, Agnielli G, Goldhaber S, Raskob G, Comerota A. Antithrombotic therapy for venous thromboembolic disease: Am College of Chest Physicians evidence based clinical practice guidelines (8th edition). Chest. 2008; 133: 454S–545S.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Comerota AJ. The ATTRACT trial: rationale for early intervention for iliofemoral DVT. Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther. 2010 Jan 3 [E-pub ahead of print].
  17. ↵
    Enden T, Sandvik L, Klow N, Hafsahl G, Holme PA, Holman LO Ghanima W, Njaastad AM, Sandbaek G, Slagsvold CE, Sandset PM. Catheter-directed venous thrombolysis in acute iliofemoral vein thrombosis: the CaVenT study: rationale and design of a multicentre, randomized controlled, clinical trial (NCT00251771). Am Heart J. 2007; 154: 808–814.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Segal J, Streiff M, Hofmann L, Thornton K, Bass E. Management of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review for a practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146: 211–222.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    Meissner M. Thrombolytic therapy for acute deep vein thrombosis and the venous registry. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2002; 3: S53–S60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    Mewissen M. Catheter-directed thrombolysis for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001; 4: 111–114.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    McLafferty R. Endovascular management of deep venous thrombosis. Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther. 2008; 20: 87–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Strandness D Jr, Langlois Y, Cramer M, Randlett A. Long-term sequelae of acute venous thrombosis. JAMA. 1983; 250: 1289–1292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Comerota A, Schmieder F. Intraoperative lytic therapy: agents and methods of administration. Semin Vasc Surg. 2001; 14: 132–142.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Mewissen M, Seabrook G, Meissner MH, Cynamon J, Labropoulos N, Haughton SH. Catheter-directed thrombolysis for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: report of a national multicenter registry. Radiology. 1999; 211: 39–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Bjarnason H, Kruse JR, Asinger DA, Nazarian GK, Dieta CA Jr, Caldwell MD Key NS, Hirsch AT, Hunter DW. Iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis: safety and efficacy outcome during 5 years of catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1997; 8: 405–418.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Kibbe M, Ujiki M, Goodwin A, Eskandari M, Yao J, Matsumura J. Iliac vein compression in an asymptomatic patient population. J Vasc Surg. 2004; 39: 937–943.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Heniford B, Senler S, Olsofka J, Carrillo E, Bergamini T. May-Thurner syndrome: management by endovascular surgical techniques. Ann Vasc Surg. 1998; 12: 482–486.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Kim J, Choi D, Guk Ko Y, Park S, Jang Y, Lee do Y. Percutaneous treatment of deep vein thrombosis in May-Thurner syndrome. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006; 29: 571–575.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Kwak H, Han Y, Lee Y, Jin G, Chung G. Stents in common iliac vein obstruction with acute ipsilateral deep thrombosis: early and late results. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005; 16: 815–822.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Husmann M, Heller G, Kalka C, Savolainen H, Do D, Schmidli J. Stenting of common iliac vein obstructions combined with regional thrombolysis and thrombectomy in acute deep vein thrombosis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007; 34: 87–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Burroughs K. New considerations in the diagnosis and therapy of deep vein thrombosis. South Med J. 1999; 92: 517–520.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    Rao A, Konig G, Leers SA, Cho J, Rhee RY, Makaroun MS, Chaer RA. Pharmacomechanical thrombectomy for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis: an alternative in patients with contraindications to thrombolysis. J Vasc Surg. 2009; 50: 1092–1098.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Gandini R, Maspes F, Sodani G, Masala S, Assegnati G, Simonetti G. Percutaneous ilio-caval thrombectomy with the Amplatz device: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 1999; 9: 951–958.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Elsharawy M, Elzayat E. Early results of thrombolysis vs. anticoagulation in iliofemoral venous thrombosis: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002; 24: 209–214.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Jackson L, Wang X, Dudrick S, Gersten G. Catheter directed thrombolysis and/or thrombectomy with selective endovascular stenting as alternatives to systemic anticoagulation for treatment of acute deep vein thrombosis. Am J Surg. 2005; 190: 864–868.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Lin P, Zhou W, Dardik A, Mussa F, Kougias P, Hedayati H. Catheter-direct thrombolysis versus pharmacomechanical thrombectomy for treatment of symptomatic lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. Am J Surg. 2006; 192: 782–788.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Shi H, Huang Y, Shen T, Xu Q. Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy combined with catheter-directed thrombolysis in the treatment of symptomatic lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. Eur J Radiol. 2009; 71: 350–355.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    O'Sullivan GJ, Semba CP, Bittner CA, Kee ST, Razavi MK, Sze DY, Dake MD. Endovascular management of iliac vein compression (May-Thurner) syndrome. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000; 11: 823–836.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    Patel NH, Stookey KR, Ketcham DB, Cragg AH. Endovascular management of acute extensive iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis caused by May-Thurner syndrome. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2000; 11: 1297–1302.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    Heijmen RH, Bollen TL, Duyndam DA, Overtoom TT, Van Den Berg JC, Moll FL. Endovascular venous stenting in May-Thurner syndrome. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2001; 42: 83–87.
    OpenUrlPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
April 2010, Volume 30, Issue 4
  • Table of Contents
Previous ArticleNext Article

Jump to

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters

Article Tools

  • Print
  • Citation Tools
    Indications for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Acute Proximal Deep Venous Thrombosis
    Benjamin O. Patterson, Robert Hinchliffe, Ian M. Loftus, Matt M. Thompson and Peter J.E. Holt
    Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2010;30:669-674, originally published March 17, 2010
    https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.200766

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
  • Article Alerts
    Log in to Email Alerts with your email address.
  • Save to my folders

Share this Article

  • Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Indications for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Acute Proximal Deep Venous Thrombosis
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology web site.
  • Share on Social Media
    Indications for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Acute Proximal Deep Venous Thrombosis
    Benjamin O. Patterson, Robert Hinchliffe, Ian M. Loftus, Matt M. Thompson and Peter J.E. Holt
    Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2010;30:669-674, originally published March 17, 2010
    https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.109.200766
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo

Related Articles

Cited By...

Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology

  • About ATVB
  • AHA CME
  • Meeting Abstracts
  • Permissions
  • Email Alerts
  • Open Access Information
  • AHA Journals RSS
  • AHA Newsroom

Contact the Editorial Office:
email: atvb@atvb.org

Information for:
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Subscriber Help
  • Institutions / Librarians
  • Institutional Subscriptions FAQ
  • International Users
American Heart Association Learn and Live
National Center
7272 Greenville Ave.
Dallas, TX 75231

Customer Service

  • 1-800-AHA-USA-1
  • 1-800-242-8721
  • Local Info
  • Contact Us

About Us

Our mission is to build healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. That single purpose drives all we do. The need for our work is beyond question. Find Out More about the American Heart Association

  • Careers
  • SHOP
  • Latest Heart and Stroke News
  • AHA/ASA Media Newsroom

Our Sites

  • American Heart Association
  • American Stroke Association
  • For Professionals
  • More Sites

Take Action

  • Advocate
  • Donate
  • Planned Giving
  • Volunteer

Online Communities

  • AFib Support
  • Garden Community
  • Patient Support Network
  • Professional Online Network

Follow Us:

  • Follow Circulation on Twitter
  • Visit Circulation on Facebook
  • Follow Circulation on Google Plus
  • Follow Circulation on Instagram
  • Follow Circulation on Pinterest
  • Follow Circulation on YouTube
  • Rss Feeds
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright
  • Ethics Policy
  • Conflict of Interest Policy
  • Linking Policy
  • Diversity
  • Careers

©2018 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. The American Heart Association is a qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.
*Red Dress™ DHHS, Go Red™ AHA; National Wear Red Day ® is a registered trademark.

  • PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST National Health Council Standards of Excellence Certification Program
  • BBB Accredited Charity
  • Comodo Secured