Comparative Study of Two Different Access Points, One Tibial Vein and the Popliteal Vein, for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Treatment of Acute Mixed Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Annals of vascular surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.011
Xiaojie Chen, Qinwen Luo, Weiguo Xu, Hanlin Luo
{"title":"Comparative Study of Two Different Access Points, One Tibial Vein and the Popliteal Vein, for Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Treatment of Acute Mixed Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis.","authors":"Xiaojie Chen, Qinwen Luo, Weiguo Xu, Hanlin Luo","doi":"10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although the popliteal vein approach is commonly used for catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) treatment in patients with acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), CDT via a new access route, the posterior tibial vein, is also used and has demonstrated good results. However, this tibial approach has not been tested in large samples. In this article, we compare the early efficacy of CDT using the tibial and popliteal vein approaches for the treatment of acute mixed lower extremity DVT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort study, 87 patients with acute mixed lower extremity DVT treated at the Department of Interventional Medicine of Zhuhai People's Hospital were enrolled; those with tibial vein access and popliteal vein access were included in the observation (n = 55) and control (n = 32) groups, respectively. The safety and efficacy of CDT via tibial vein access were investigated by collecting and comparing indicators such as venous patency, thrombus removal effect, thigh and calf circumference difference, swelling reduction rate of the affected limb, surgical complications, and postdischarge complication rate of the patients in the 2 groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The postoperative thrombus clearance effect of the observation group was significantly better than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the postoperative venous patency rate of the observation group was 83.2 ± 15.7%, which was higher than that of the control group (62.2 ± 38.2%) (P = 0.005). The swelling reduction rate of the lower extremity was 74.0 ± 33.8% in the observation group and 51.4 ± 30.0% in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.002). However, there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in the rates of thigh swelling reduction, bleeding-related complications, or postoperative complications between the 2 groups of patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CDT via the tibial vein approach is safe, effective, and may be a better approach for CDT access, offering superior thrombus clearance, venous patency, and lower extremity swelling reduction postoperatively.</p>","PeriodicalId":8061,"journal":{"name":"Annals of vascular surgery","volume":" ","pages":"110-119"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Although the popliteal vein approach is commonly used for catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) treatment in patients with acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT), CDT via a new access route, the posterior tibial vein, is also used and has demonstrated good results. However, this tibial approach has not been tested in large samples. In this article, we compare the early efficacy of CDT using the tibial and popliteal vein approaches for the treatment of acute mixed lower extremity DVT.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 87 patients with acute mixed lower extremity DVT treated at the Department of Interventional Medicine of Zhuhai People's Hospital were enrolled; those with tibial vein access and popliteal vein access were included in the observation (n = 55) and control (n = 32) groups, respectively. The safety and efficacy of CDT via tibial vein access were investigated by collecting and comparing indicators such as venous patency, thrombus removal effect, thigh and calf circumference difference, swelling reduction rate of the affected limb, surgical complications, and postdischarge complication rate of the patients in the 2 groups.

Results: The postoperative thrombus clearance effect of the observation group was significantly better than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and the postoperative venous patency rate of the observation group was 83.2 ± 15.7%, which was higher than that of the control group (62.2 ± 38.2%) (P = 0.005). The swelling reduction rate of the lower extremity was 74.0 ± 33.8% in the observation group and 51.4 ± 30.0% in the control group, with a statistically significant difference (P = 0.002). However, there was no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05) in the rates of thigh swelling reduction, bleeding-related complications, or postoperative complications between the 2 groups of patients.

Conclusions: CDT via the tibial vein approach is safe, effective, and may be a better approach for CDT access, offering superior thrombus clearance, venous patency, and lower extremity swelling reduction postoperatively.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在治疗急性混合性下肢深静脉血栓形成时使用导管引导溶栓的两个不同接入点(胫静脉和腘静脉)的比较研究 1.
背景:虽然腘静脉途径常用于急性下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)患者的导管引导溶栓(CDT)治疗,但通过胫后静脉这一新的途径进行 CDT 治疗也得到了应用,并取得了良好的效果。然而,这种胫骨途径尚未经过大样本测试:目的:比较使用胫静脉和腘静脉入路 CDT 治疗急性混合型下肢深静脉血栓的早期疗效:在这项回顾性队列研究中,珠海市人民医院介入科收治了87例急性混合型下肢深静脉血栓患者,将胫骨静脉入路和腘静脉入路的患者分别纳入观察组(55例)和对照组(32例)。通过收集和比较两组患者的静脉通畅率、血栓清除效果、大腿和小腿围度差、患肢消肿率、手术并发症、出院后并发症发生率等指标,探讨经胫静脉入路 CDT 的安全性和有效性:观察组的术后血栓清除效果明显优于对照组(P<0.05),观察组的术后静脉通畅率为(83.2±15.7)%,高于对照组(62.2±38.2)%(P=0.005)。观察组下肢肿胀消退率为(74.0 ± 33.8%),对照组为(51.4 ± 30.0%),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.002)。然而,两组患者的大腿肿胀减轻率、出血相关并发症或术后并发症的发生率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05):结论:经胫静脉入路的 CDT 安全、有效,可能是一种更好的 CDT 入路方法,能提供更好的血栓清除、静脉通畅和术后下肢肿胀减轻效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
603
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Vascular Surgery, published eight times a year, invites original manuscripts reporting clinical and experimental work in vascular surgery for peer review. Articles may be submitted for the following sections of the journal: Clinical Research (reports of clinical series, new drug or medical device trials) Basic Science Research (new investigations, experimental work) Case Reports (reports on a limited series of patients) General Reviews (scholarly review of the existing literature on a relevant topic) Developments in Endovascular and Endoscopic Surgery Selected Techniques (technical maneuvers) Historical Notes (interesting vignettes from the early days of vascular surgery) Editorials/Correspondence
期刊最新文献
Association of Chronic Limb Ischemia Rutherford Classification with Clinical Outcomes Following Lower Extremity Revascularization. Benefits of Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance of infra-inguinal bypass grafts and institutional costs of graft failure: a retrospective single-centre study. Comparison of treatment outcomes between graft replacement and aneurysmorrhaphy with graft preservation for type 2 endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Covered Versus Bare Metal Stents in Chronic Mesenteric Ischaemia Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Incidence and comparison of postoperative explained and unexplained fever in open aortic repair.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1