Department of Vascular Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jun 5;14(1):12916. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-63782-6.
This study was designed to assess the optimal access route for the endovascular treatment of acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with acute lower extremity deep venous thrombosis who underwent endovascular treatment from February 2009 to December 2020. Patients underwent non-direct calf deep vein puncture (NDCDVP) from February 2009 to December 2011 and direct calf deep vein puncture (DCDVP) from January 2012 to December 2020. Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) was used to treat all patients in the NDCDVP group, whereas patients in the DCDVP group were treated with CDT or the AngioJet rhyolitic thrombectomy system. In patients exhibiting iliac vein compression syndrome, the iliac vein was dilated and implanted with a stent. Technical success rates and perioperative complication rates were compared between these two treatment groups. The NDCDVP group included 83 patients (40 males, 43 females) with a mean age of 55 ± 16 years, while the DCDVP group included 487 patients (231 males. 256 females) with a mean age of 56 ± 15 years. No significant differences were observed between these groups with respect to any analyzed clinical characteristics. The technical success rates in the NDCDVP and DCDVP groups were 96.4 and 98.2%, respectively (P > 0.05). In the NDCDVP group, the small saphenous vein (SSV)or great saphenous vein (GSV)were the most common access routes (77.1%, 64/83), whereas the anterior tibial vein (ATV) was the most common access route in the DCDVP group (78.0%, 380/487), followed by the posterior tibial vein (PTV) and peroneal vein (PV)(15.6% and 6.4%, respectively). Relative to the NDCDVP group, more patients in the DCDVP group underwent the removal of deep vein clots below the knee (7.2% [6/83] vs. 24.2% [118/487], P < 0.001). Moreover, relative to the NDCDVP group, significantly lower complication rates were evident in the DCDVP group (local infection: 10.8% vs. 0.4%, P < 0.001; local hematoma: 15.7% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001). The position change rate was also significantly lower in the DCDVP group relative to the NDCDVP group (0% [0/487] vs. 60.2% [50/83], P < 0.001). The calf deep veins (CDVs) represent a feasible and safe access route for the endovascular treatment of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.
本研究旨在评估急性下肢深静脉血栓形成血管内治疗的最佳入路方式。这是一项回顾性分析,纳入了 2009 年 2 月至 2020 年 12 月期间接受血管内治疗的急性下肢深静脉血栓形成患者。2009 年 2 月至 2011 年 12 月期间采用非直接小腿深静脉穿刺(NDCDVP),2012 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间采用直接小腿深静脉穿刺(DCDVP)。所有 NDCDVP 组患者均采用导管直接溶栓(CDT)治疗,而 DCDVP 组患者则采用 CDT 或 AngioJet 流纹岩血栓切除术系统治疗。对于存在髂静脉压迫综合征的患者,扩张髂静脉并植入支架。比较了两组治疗的技术成功率和围手术期并发症发生率。NDCDVP 组包括 83 例患者(40 例男性,43 例女性),平均年龄为 55±16 岁,DCDVP 组包括 487 例患者(231 例男性,256 例女性),平均年龄为 56±15 岁。两组在任何分析的临床特征方面均无显著差异。NDCDVP 组和 DCDVP 组的技术成功率分别为 96.4%和 98.2%(P>0.05)。在 NDCDVP 组中,小隐静脉(SSV)或大隐静脉(GSV)是最常见的入路(77.1%,64/83),而 DCDVP 组中最常见的入路是胫前静脉(ATV)(78.0%,380/487),其次是胫后静脉(PTV)和腓静脉(PV)(15.6%和 6.4%)。与 NDCDVP 组相比,DCDVP 组中更多的患者进行了膝关节以下深静脉血栓的清除(7.2%[6/83]比 24.2%[118/487],P<0.001)。此外,DCDVP 组的并发症发生率明显低于 NDCDVP 组(局部感染:10.8%比 0.4%,P<0.001;局部血肿:15.7%比 1.0%,P<0.001)。DCDVP 组的位置变化率也明显低于 NDCDVP 组(0%[0/487]比 60.2%[50/83],P<0.001)。小腿深静脉(CDV)是下肢深静脉血栓形成血管内治疗的一种可行且安全的入路方式。