Lugo Joanelle, Tanious Adam, Armstrong Paul, Back Martin, Johnson Brad, Shames Murray, Moudgill Neil, Nelson Peter, Illig Karl A
Division of Vascular Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Division of Vascular Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2015 Aug;29(6):1073-7. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2015.02.006. Epub 2015 May 19.
Most clinicians feel that treatment for patients with acute primary axillosubclavian vein thrombosis ("effort thrombosis") is catheter-directed thrombolysis followed by thoracic outlet decompression. Several investigators feel that first rib resection (FRR) is not indicated in every case. No randomized data exist to answer this question.
A MEDLINE search was done using the terms "Paget-Schroetter syndrome," "upper extremity DVT," "first rib resection," "effort thrombosis," and "primary upper extremity thrombosis," with thrombolysis used as an "AND" term. We also specifically explored references cited to support either side of this argument in the past. Analysis was limited to patients aged 18 years or older with symptoms of 14-day duration or less undergoing thrombolysis for primary axillosubclavian vein thrombosis. Those studies that did not report follow-up, duplicate series from the same institution, and those in which patients were stented were excluded. Results were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis, with groups assigned according to each authors' prospectively described algorithm.
Twelve series were included. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to treatment after thrombolysis: FRR (448 patients), FRR plus endovenous balloon venoplasty (FRR + PLASTY; 68 patients), and those with no further intervention after thrombolysis (rib not removed; 168 patients). Symptom relief at last follow-up was significantly more likely in the FRR (95%) and FRR + PLASTY (93%) groups than in the rib not removed (54%) group (both <0.0001) as was patency (98%, 86%, and 48%, respectively; both <0.0001 vs. rib not removed). More than 40% of patients in the rib not removed group eventually required rib resection for recurrent symptoms. No differences in symptom-free rates were seen when comparing FRR with FRR + PLASTY.
In patients with acute effort thrombosis who undergo thrombolysis, permanent symptom relief and long-term patency are more likely to be achieved in patients who undergo FRR with or without endovenous balloon venoplasty than those whose rib is left intact.
大多数临床医生认为,急性原发性腋-锁骨下静脉血栓形成(“用力性血栓形成”)患者的治疗方法是导管定向溶栓,随后进行胸廓出口减压。一些研究者认为并非每种情况都需要进行第一肋切除术(FRR)。目前尚无随机数据来回答这个问题。
使用“佩吉特-施罗特综合征”“上肢深静脉血栓形成”“第一肋切除术”“用力性血栓形成”和“原发性上肢血栓形成”等术语在MEDLINE数据库中进行检索,并将溶栓作为“与”条件。我们还专门查阅了过去支持该争论双方观点所引用的参考文献。分析仅限于年龄在18岁及以上、症状持续时间为14天或更短、因原发性腋-锁骨下静脉血栓形成接受溶栓治疗的患者。排除那些未报告随访情况、来自同一机构的重复系列研究以及对患者进行支架置入的研究。根据每位作者前瞻性描述的算法对结果进行意向性分析分组。
纳入12个系列研究。根据溶栓后的治疗方法将患者分为3组:FRR组(448例患者)、FRR联合静脉内球囊血管成形术组(FRR + PLASTY组;68例患者)以及溶栓后未进行进一步干预组(未切除肋骨组;168例患者)。最后一次随访时,FRR组(95%)和FRR + PLASTY组(93%)的症状缓解情况显著优于未切除肋骨组(54%)(P均<0.0001),通畅率也是如此(分别为98%、86%和48%;与未切除肋骨组相比P均<0.0001)。未切除肋骨组超过40%的患者最终因症状复发需要进行肋骨切除术。比较FRR组和FRR + PLASTY组时,无症状率无差异。
对于接受溶栓治疗的急性用力性血栓形成患者,与肋骨未切除的患者相比,接受FRR联合或不联合静脉内球囊血管成形术的患者更有可能获得永久性症状缓解和长期通畅。