Risk factors and classification of reintervention following deep venous stenting for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND

Acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is associated with the development of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Thrombolysis and deep venous stenting can restore vessel outflow and can reduce the incidence of PTS. However, for a proportion of patients, subsequent stenosis or reocclusion will necessitate further intervention. In the present study, we aimed to identify the risk factors, examine the outcomes (reintervention success and PTS), and develop a classification system for reintervention.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center cohort study of patients who had undergone successful lysis for iliofemoral DVT from 2013 to 2017. The patients' records and imaging studies were examined for demographics, risk factors, extent of thrombus and vessel clearance, stenting, flow, reintervention, anticoagulation compliance, Villalta score, and secondary patency. From our findings, a system of classification for patients for whom procedures have failed was developed, constituting technical, hematologic, flow related, or multiple factors.

RESULTS

Of 143 limbs (133 patients), 48 (33.6%) had required reintervention, of which 25 had presented with reocclusion (17.4%). The median time to reintervention was 45 days. The need for reintervention was associated with inferior vena cava thrombus (risk ratio [RR], 2.16; P < .01), stenting across the inguinal ligament (RR, 2.08; P < .01), and anticoagulation noncompliance (RR, 7.09; P < .01). Successful reintervention was achieved in 31 limbs (64.6%): 23 of 23 (100%) treated before occlusion vs 8 of 25 (36.4%) treated after occlusion (RR, 32.31; P < .01). A greater incidence of any PTS was observed for patients requiring reintervention (median Villalta score, 3 [interquartile range, 1-5]; vs 1 [interquartile range, 1-4]; RR, 2.28; P = .029). Cases without complete vessel occlusion (reintervention and control) had a lower rate of any PTS (14.0% vs 42.9%; RR, 3.06; P < .01) and moderate to severe PTS (3.0% vs 14.3%; RR, 4.76; P = .046) Technical issues were observed in 54.2% of reintervention cases and 6.3% of cases not requiring reintervention (P < .01). Hematologic issues were identified in 33.3% of reintervention cases and 1.1% of cases not requiring reintervention (P < .01). Flow-related issues were observed in 43.8% of the reintervention cases and no cases not requiring reintervention (P < .01). Of the reintervention cases, 27.1% were multifactorial and were associated with a lower rate of vessel salvage; however, this did not translate into a significant difference in secondary patency on survival analysis (RR, 1.70; P = .429).

CONCLUSIONS

A large proportion of patients required reintervention because of potentially preventable factors. Anticoagulation compliance, thrombus burden, and poor flow are important risk factors to consider in patient selection. Reintervention increased the risk of PTS and was more often successful when achieved before vessel occlusion.