Clinic for Angiology, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Division of Angiology, Cantonal Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
J Thromb Haemost. 2017 Jul;15(7):1351-1360. doi: 10.1111/jth.13709. Epub 2017 Jun 5.
Essentials Acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis can be treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). We performed a randomized trial comparing conventional CDT versus ultrasound-assisted CDT (USAT). Clinical and duplex sonographic outcomes at 12 months were similar in the CDT and USAT groups. In both groups, incidence of postthrombotic syndrome was very low with good quality of life.
Background In patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IFDVT), catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) aims to prevent the postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). Adding intravascular high-frequency, low-power ultrasound energy to CDT does not seem to improve the immediate thrombolysis results but its impact on clinical outcomes at 12 months is not known. Patients/Methods In this randomized-controlled trial, 48 patients (mean age 50 ± 21 years; 52% women) with acute IFDVT were randomized to conventional CDT (n = 24) or ultrasound-assisted CDT (USAT; n = 24). In both groups, a fixed-dose thrombolysis regimen (20 mg r-tPA over 15 h) was used, followed by routine stenting of residual venous obstruction. At 12 months, PTS and venous disease severity (Villalta score and revised Venous Clinical Severity Score [rVCSS]), disease-specific quality of live (QOL; CIVIQ-20) and duplex-sonographic outcomes were assessed. Results Among the 45 surviving patients, 40 (89%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 76-96%) patients were free from PTS (defined as Villalta score < 5 points; 83%, 95% CI 61-95% in the USAT and 96%, 95% CI 77-100% in the CDT group), with a similar mean total Villalta score of 2.3 ± 2.9 vs. 1.7 ± 1.6, and a mean total rVCSS of 3.0 ± 3.5 vs. 2.7 ± 2.9 in the USAT and the CDT groups, respectively. Both groups had good disease-specific QOL with a CIVIQ-20 score of 29.4 ± 11.8 vs. 26.1 ± 7.8, respectively. Primary (100% vs. 92%) and secondary (100% vs. 96%) iliofemoral patency rates and presence of femoro-popliteal venous reflux (39% vs. 33%) were similar in both groups. Conclusion The addition of intravascular ultrasound energy to conventional CDT for the treatment of acute IFDVT did not have any impact on relevant clinical or duplex sonographic outcomes, which were favorable in both study groups. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier:NCT01482273.
急性髂股深静脉血栓形成可采用导管直接溶栓(CDT)治疗。我们进行了一项随机试验,比较了常规 CDT 与超声辅助 CDT(USAT)。12 个月时的临床和双功能超声检查结果在 CDT 和 USAT 组中相似。两组的血栓后综合征发生率均很低,生活质量良好。
在急性髂股深静脉血栓形成(IFDVT)患者中,CDT 旨在预防血栓后综合征(PTS)。向 CDT 中添加血管内高频、低功率超声能量似乎不会改善即刻溶栓效果,但尚不清楚其对 12 个月临床结局的影响。
患者/方法:在这项随机对照试验中,48 例(平均年龄 50±21 岁;52%为女性)急性 IFDVT 患者被随机分配至常规 CDT(n=24)或超声辅助 CDT(USAT;n=24)组。两组均采用固定剂量溶栓方案(20mg r-tPA 输注 15 小时),随后对残留静脉阻塞进行常规支架置入。在 12 个月时,评估 PTS 和静脉疾病严重程度(Villalta 评分和改良静脉临床严重程度评分[rVCSS])、疾病特异性生活质量(CIVIQ-20)和双功能超声检查结果。
在 45 例存活患者中,40 例(89%;95%置信区间[CI] 76-96%)患者无 PTS(定义为 Villalta 评分<5 分;USAT 组为 83%,95%CI 61-95%,CDT 组为 96%,95%CI 77-100%),平均总 Villalta 评分分别为 2.3±2.9 和 1.7±1.6,平均总 rVCSS 分别为 3.0±3.5 和 2.7±2.9。两组疾病特异性生活质量均良好,CIVIQ-20 评分分别为 29.4±11.8 和 26.1±7.8。两组主要(100% vs. 92%)和次要(100% vs. 96%)髂股通畅率以及股-腘静脉反流存在率(39% vs. 33%)相似。
将血管内超声能量添加到急性 IFDVT 的常规 CDT 治疗中,对相关的临床或双功能超声检查结果没有任何影响,两组的结果均较好。