Catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute entire lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: a comparative study of calf deep vein and contralateral femoral venous access
10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20240726-00438
- VernacularTitle:经健侧股静脉入路与小腿深静脉入路的导管溶栓综合治疗急性混合型下肢深静脉血栓形成的对照研究
- Author:
Jian WANG
1
;
Cheng QIAN
;
Guoqing NI
;
Maofeng GONG
;
Liang LIU
;
Peng PENG
;
Libing GAO
;
Jianping GU
;
Guoping CHEN
Author Information
1. 南京医科大学附属江宁医院放射介入科，南京 211100
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Venous thrombosis;
Lower extremity;
Catheter-directed thrombolysis;
Venous access;
Femoral vein
- From:
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2025;59(5):577-585
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) via the contralateral femoral vein approach (CFVA-CDT) and the calf deep vein approach (CVA-CDT) in the treatment of acute mixed-type lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT).Methods:Patients treated with CFVA-CDT and CVA-CDT for acute mixed-type DVT were retrospectively collected from January 2018 to December 2021, totaling 49 and 32 patients, respectively. The relevant technical indicators, thrombolysis rates in the iliac-femoral vein segment and femoral-popliteal vein segment, clinical efficacy, and the incidence of lower extremity deep vein patency, venous valve insufficiency, and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), as well as the severity of chronic venous disease in the affected limb (VCSS score) during a 2-year follow-up period were retrospectively compared between the two venous access CDT groups. The t-test was used for comparing quantitative data, while the chi-square test or Fisher′s exact test was used for categorical data.Results:During CFVA-CDT procedure, 6-8 F vascular sheaths were used, and balloon dilation of 2~6 mm was more frequently employed (65.31%, 32/49) to expand venous stenosis/occlusion segments before successful sheath placement compared to the CVA-CDT group (37.50%, 12/32), and the difference was statistically significant ( P=0.014). In the CVA-CDT group, 31.25% (10/32) of patients had a maximum sheath size of 6 F, while the remainder used 4 or 5 F sheaths. Among them, 34.38% (11/32) of patients required re-puncture of the popliteal or femoral vein for larger sheaths (≥8 F) for thrombus aspiration and subsequent endovascular treatment during or after thrombolysis. The effective thrombolysis rates (≥50%) in the iliac-femoral vein segment were not significantly different between the two groups ( P=0.778). The effective thrombolysis rate of the femoral-popliteal venous segment is related to the presence or absence of popliteal vein opacification on lower extremity venous antegrade venography. There was no significant difference between the groups when the popliteal vein was visualized ( P=1.000). While the popliteal vein was not visualized, the CVA-CDT group (75.0%, 15/20) was significantly better than the CFVA-CDT group (34.38%, 11/32), and the difference was statistically significant ( P=0.004). There was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between the two groups ( P=0.819). During follow-up, the femoral-popliteal vein patency rate in the CVA-CDT group (87.50%, 28/32) was significantly higher than in the CFVA-CDT group (44.90%, 22/49), the difference was statistically significant ( P<0.001). Conclusions:Successful CFVA-CDT requires the assistance of more ancillary devices, while the use of larger sheaths is more limited in CVA-CDT due to the smaller caliber of the calf deep veins. The presence or absence of popliteal vein opacification on lower extremity venous antegrade venography may influence the effective thrombolysis of the femoral-popliteal venous segment thrombus in patients with acute mixed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) treated with CFVA-CDT and CVA-CDT. Compared to CFVA-CDT, CVA-CDT can improve the patency rate of the femoral-popliteal venous segment.
