Ultrasound-accelerated vs Standard Catheter-directed Thrombolysis - A Comparative Study in Patients with Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis

Reginald Baker, Shaun Samuels, James F. Benenati, Alex Powell, Heiko Uthoff

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the thrombolytic efficacy and safety of standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound (US)-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Materials and Methods: All medical records of patients who underwent CDT or UAT for DVT between June 2004 and October 2011 at a single tertiary care center were reviewed. Target vein patency was graded according to a reporting standard by an independent interventional radiologist. Results: CDT was performed in 19 patients and UAT in 64 patients. The baseline parameters and DVT characteristics, including the duration of symptoms, the location, and the extension did not differ significantly between groups. Both treatment modalities were associated with a similar substantial resolution of thrombus load (CDT=89; interquartile range [IQR], 70-100; UAT=82; IQR, 55-92 (P=.560). No significant differences in the lytic drug infusion rates, the total lytic doses, the total infusion time, and the use of adjunctive procedures were observed between groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were observed in 8.4 and 4.8 of the patients, with no difference between the treatment groups (P=.709 and P=.918, respectively). During a median follow-up of 35 months (20-55 months), three deaths and 16 cases of repeated thrombosis were observed. The estimated mean event-free survival time was longer after CDT (69 mo) compared with UAT (33 mo) (log-rank test P=.310). Conclusions: The present study failed to prove any substantial clinical benefit provided by UAT with regard to effectiveness or safety compared with standard CDT. Given the added costs of the US delivery device, prospective randomized data are needed to justify its widespread use for DVT treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1460-1466
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology
Volume23
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2012

Fingerprint

Venous Thrombosis
Catheters
Thrombosis
Safety
Therapeutics
Tertiary Care Centers
Disease-Free Survival
Medical Records
Veins
Hemorrhage
Costs and Cost Analysis
Equipment and Supplies
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • catheter-directed thrombolysis
  • CDT
  • deep vein thrombosis
  • DVT
  • postthrombotic syndrome
  • PTS
  • UAT
  • ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Ultrasound-accelerated vs Standard Catheter-directed Thrombolysis - A Comparative Study in Patients with Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis. / Baker, Reginald; Samuels, Shaun; Benenati, James F.; Powell, Alex; Uthoff, Heiko.

In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Vol. 23, No. 11, 01.11.2012, p. 1460-1466.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baker, Reginald ; Samuels, Shaun ; Benenati, James F. ; Powell, Alex ; Uthoff, Heiko. / Ultrasound-accelerated vs Standard Catheter-directed Thrombolysis - A Comparative Study in Patients with Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis. In: Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology. 2012 ; Vol. 23, No. 11. pp. 1460-1466.
@article{7ff01f7687c74bfeb4b3577c9daad137,
title = "Ultrasound-accelerated vs Standard Catheter-directed Thrombolysis - A Comparative Study in Patients with Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis",
abstract = "Purpose: To compare the thrombolytic efficacy and safety of standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound (US)-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Materials and Methods: All medical records of patients who underwent CDT or UAT for DVT between June 2004 and October 2011 at a single tertiary care center were reviewed. Target vein patency was graded according to a reporting standard by an independent interventional radiologist. Results: CDT was performed in 19 patients and UAT in 64 patients. The baseline parameters and DVT characteristics, including the duration of symptoms, the location, and the extension did not differ significantly between groups. Both treatment modalities were associated with a similar substantial resolution of thrombus load (CDT=89; interquartile range [IQR], 70-100; UAT=82; IQR, 55-92 (P=.560). No significant differences in the lytic drug infusion rates, the total lytic doses, the total infusion time, and the use of adjunctive procedures were observed between groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were observed in 8.4 and 4.8 of the patients, with no difference between the treatment groups (P=.709 and P=.918, respectively). During a median follow-up of 35 months (20-55 months), three deaths and 16 cases of repeated thrombosis were observed. The estimated mean event-free survival time was longer after CDT (69 mo) compared with UAT (33 mo) (log-rank test P=.310). Conclusions: The present study failed to prove any substantial clinical benefit provided by UAT with regard to effectiveness or safety compared with standard CDT. Given the added costs of the US delivery device, prospective randomized data are needed to justify its widespread use for DVT treatment.",
keywords = "catheter-directed thrombolysis, CDT, deep vein thrombosis, DVT, postthrombotic syndrome, PTS, UAT, ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis",
author = "Reginald Baker and Shaun Samuels and Benenati, {James F.} and Alex Powell and Heiko Uthoff",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvir.2012.08.008",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "1460--1466",
journal = "Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology",
issn = "1051-0443",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ultrasound-accelerated vs Standard Catheter-directed Thrombolysis - A Comparative Study in Patients with Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis

AU - Baker, Reginald

AU - Samuels, Shaun

AU - Benenati, James F.

AU - Powell, Alex

AU - Uthoff, Heiko

PY - 2012/11/1

Y1 - 2012/11/1

N2 - Purpose: To compare the thrombolytic efficacy and safety of standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound (US)-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Materials and Methods: All medical records of patients who underwent CDT or UAT for DVT between June 2004 and October 2011 at a single tertiary care center were reviewed. Target vein patency was graded according to a reporting standard by an independent interventional radiologist. Results: CDT was performed in 19 patients and UAT in 64 patients. The baseline parameters and DVT characteristics, including the duration of symptoms, the location, and the extension did not differ significantly between groups. Both treatment modalities were associated with a similar substantial resolution of thrombus load (CDT=89; interquartile range [IQR], 70-100; UAT=82; IQR, 55-92 (P=.560). No significant differences in the lytic drug infusion rates, the total lytic doses, the total infusion time, and the use of adjunctive procedures were observed between groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were observed in 8.4 and 4.8 of the patients, with no difference between the treatment groups (P=.709 and P=.918, respectively). During a median follow-up of 35 months (20-55 months), three deaths and 16 cases of repeated thrombosis were observed. The estimated mean event-free survival time was longer after CDT (69 mo) compared with UAT (33 mo) (log-rank test P=.310). Conclusions: The present study failed to prove any substantial clinical benefit provided by UAT with regard to effectiveness or safety compared with standard CDT. Given the added costs of the US delivery device, prospective randomized data are needed to justify its widespread use for DVT treatment.

AB - Purpose: To compare the thrombolytic efficacy and safety of standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound (US)-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Materials and Methods: All medical records of patients who underwent CDT or UAT for DVT between June 2004 and October 2011 at a single tertiary care center were reviewed. Target vein patency was graded according to a reporting standard by an independent interventional radiologist. Results: CDT was performed in 19 patients and UAT in 64 patients. The baseline parameters and DVT characteristics, including the duration of symptoms, the location, and the extension did not differ significantly between groups. Both treatment modalities were associated with a similar substantial resolution of thrombus load (CDT=89; interquartile range [IQR], 70-100; UAT=82; IQR, 55-92 (P=.560). No significant differences in the lytic drug infusion rates, the total lytic doses, the total infusion time, and the use of adjunctive procedures were observed between groups. Major and minor bleeding complications were observed in 8.4 and 4.8 of the patients, with no difference between the treatment groups (P=.709 and P=.918, respectively). During a median follow-up of 35 months (20-55 months), three deaths and 16 cases of repeated thrombosis were observed. The estimated mean event-free survival time was longer after CDT (69 mo) compared with UAT (33 mo) (log-rank test P=.310). Conclusions: The present study failed to prove any substantial clinical benefit provided by UAT with regard to effectiveness or safety compared with standard CDT. Given the added costs of the US delivery device, prospective randomized data are needed to justify its widespread use for DVT treatment.

KW - catheter-directed thrombolysis

KW - CDT

KW - deep vein thrombosis

KW - DVT

KW - postthrombotic syndrome

KW - PTS

KW - UAT

KW - ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867865200&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867865200&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.08.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.08.008

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 1460

EP - 1466

JO - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

JF - Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology

SN - 1051-0443

IS - 11

ER -