skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A Retrospective Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Alone for Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis

Abstract

BackgroundRecent studies have suggested that catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) reduces development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Ultrasound-assisted CDT (USCDT) might enhance the efficiency of thrombolysis. We aimed to compare USCDT with CDT on efficacy, safety, development of PTS, and quality of life after long-term follow-up.MethodsWe describe a retrospective case series of 94 consecutive patients admitted with iliofemoral or more proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to the University Hospital from 2002 to 2011, treated either with CDT or USCDT. Scheduled follow-up visits took place between April 2013 and January 2014. Venography measured the degree of residual luminal obstruction of the affected veins. Each patient completed the Short Form 36-item health survey assessment and the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study-Quality of Life/Symptoms questionnaires. PTS was assessed using the Villalta scale.ResultsRisk factors of DVT were equally distributed between groups. In the USCDT group, we observed a significant decline in the duration of thrombolytic treatment (<48 h: 27 vs. 10 %), shortened hospital stay (median 6.0 days (IQR 5.0–9.0) vs. 8.0 (IQR 5.8–12.0)), and less implantation of (intravenous) stents (30 vs. 55 %). There was no difference in patency (76 vs. 79 % fully patent), prevalence of PTS (52 vs. 55 %), or quality of life between groups after long-term follow-upmore » (median 65 months, range: 15–141).ConclusionsIn this observational study, USCDT was associated with shortened treatment duration, shorter hospital stay, and less intravenous stenting, compared to CDT alone without affecting the long-term prevalence of PTS or quality of life.« less

Authors:
; ; ;  [1];  [2]; ; ;  [3];  [1]
  1. UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, K. G. Jebsen – Thrombosis Research and Expertise Centre (TREC), Department of Clinical Medicine (Norway)
  2. UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, Research Group Epidemiology of Chronic Diseases, Department of Community Medicine (Norway)
  3. University Hospital of North Norway, Department of Radiology (Norway)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22645473
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology; Journal Volume: 39; Journal Issue: 8; Other Information: Copyright (c) 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE); Article Copyright (c) 2016 The Author(s); http://www.springer-ny.com; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE; HOSPITALS; PATIENTS; PHENOBARBITAL; THROMBOSIS; VEINS

Citation Formats

Tichelaar, Vladimir Y. I. G., E-mail: ynse.i.tichelaar@uit.no, Brodin, Ellen E., Vik, Anders, Isaksen, Trond, Skjeldestad, Finn Egil, Kumar, Satish, Trasti, Nora C., Singh, Kulbir, and Hansen, John-Bjarne. A Retrospective Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Alone for Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1007/S00270-016-1367-5.
Tichelaar, Vladimir Y. I. G., E-mail: ynse.i.tichelaar@uit.no, Brodin, Ellen E., Vik, Anders, Isaksen, Trond, Skjeldestad, Finn Egil, Kumar, Satish, Trasti, Nora C., Singh, Kulbir, & Hansen, John-Bjarne. A Retrospective Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Alone for Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis. United States. doi:10.1007/S00270-016-1367-5.
Tichelaar, Vladimir Y. I. G., E-mail: ynse.i.tichelaar@uit.no, Brodin, Ellen E., Vik, Anders, Isaksen, Trond, Skjeldestad, Finn Egil, Kumar, Satish, Trasti, Nora C., Singh, Kulbir, and Hansen, John-Bjarne. Mon . "A Retrospective Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Alone for Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis". United States. doi:10.1007/S00270-016-1367-5.
@article{osti_22645473,
title = {A Retrospective Comparison of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Alone for Treatment of Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis},
author = {Tichelaar, Vladimir Y. I. G., E-mail: ynse.i.tichelaar@uit.no and Brodin, Ellen E. and Vik, Anders and Isaksen, Trond and Skjeldestad, Finn Egil and Kumar, Satish and Trasti, Nora C. and Singh, Kulbir and Hansen, John-Bjarne},
abstractNote = {BackgroundRecent studies have suggested that catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) reduces development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Ultrasound-assisted CDT (USCDT) might enhance the efficiency of thrombolysis. We aimed to compare USCDT with CDT on efficacy, safety, development of PTS, and quality of life after long-term follow-up.MethodsWe describe a retrospective case series of 94 consecutive patients admitted with iliofemoral or more proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to the University Hospital from 2002 to 2011, treated either with CDT or USCDT. Scheduled follow-up visits took place between April 2013 and January 2014. Venography measured the degree of residual luminal obstruction of the affected veins. Each patient completed the Short Form 36-item health survey assessment and the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study-Quality of Life/Symptoms questionnaires. PTS was assessed using the Villalta scale.ResultsRisk factors of DVT were equally distributed between groups. In the USCDT group, we observed a significant decline in the duration of thrombolytic treatment (<48 h: 27 vs. 10 %), shortened hospital stay (median 6.0 days (IQR 5.0–9.0) vs. 8.0 (IQR 5.8–12.0)), and less implantation of (intravenous) stents (30 vs. 55 %). There was no difference in patency (76 vs. 79 % fully patent), prevalence of PTS (52 vs. 55 %), or quality of life between groups after long-term follow-up (median 65 months, range: 15–141).ConclusionsIn this observational study, USCDT was associated with shortened treatment duration, shorter hospital stay, and less intravenous stenting, compared to CDT alone without affecting the long-term prevalence of PTS or quality of life.},
doi = {10.1007/S00270-016-1367-5},
journal = {Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology},
number = 8,
volume = 39,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Aug 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Mon Aug 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}