血管内治疗急性非癌性下腔静脉血栓的导管取栓或导管定向溶栓:回顾性队列研究

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/10742484231171579
Maofeng Gong, Qing Zhao, Rui Jiang, Zhengli Liu, Boxiang Zhao, Jie Kong, Xu He, Jianping Gu
{"title":"血管内治疗急性非癌性下腔静脉血栓的导管取栓或导管定向溶栓:回顾性队列研究","authors":"Maofeng Gong,&nbsp;Qing Zhao,&nbsp;Rui Jiang,&nbsp;Zhengli Liu,&nbsp;Boxiang Zhao,&nbsp;Jie Kong,&nbsp;Xu He,&nbsp;Jianping Gu","doi":"10.1177/10742484231171579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the safety and effectiveness of catheter-based therapy (CBT) compared to conventional catheter-directed thrombosis (CDT) for non-oncological patients with inferior vena cava thrombosis (IVCT), as well to evaluate the differences between CBTs using AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy (ART) and large lumen catheter aspiration (LLCA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective single-center study included eligible patients with IVCT treated with CBTs coupled with/without CDT or CDT alone as the first-line treatment between January 3, 2015 and January 28, 2022. The baseline demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, treatment details, course data were all reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 106 patients (128 limbs) were included, with 42 cases were treated with ART, 30 with LLCA, and 34 with CDT alone. Technical success rates were 100% (128/128), and 95.5% (84/88) limbs treated with CBT subsequently underwent CDT. The mean duration of CDT time and total infusion agent dosage in patients with CBTs were lower than those who underwent CDT alone (<i>P</i> < .05). Similarities were observed in ART compared to LLCA (<i>P</i> < .05). At the end of CDT, clinical success was achieved in 85.2% (75/88) of limbs treated with CBTs and 77.5% (31/40) of limbs with CDT alone, and 88.5% (46/52) in ART and 80.6% (29/36) in LLCA. The 12-month follow-up showed slightly lower incidences of recurrent thrombosis (7.7% vs 15.2%) and post-thrombotic syndrome (14.1% vs 21.2%), which persisted in patients who underwent ART compared to LLCA (4.3% vs 12.9% and 8.5% vs 22.6%). Patients who underwent CBTs tended to have lower minor complications (5.6% vs 17.6%) but were at higher risk of transient macroscopic hemoglobinuria (58.3% vs 0%) and recoverable acute kidney injury (11.1% vs 2.9%) compared to CDT alone. These findings were similar in ART compared to LLCA (2.4% vs 10.0%, 100% vs 0%, and 16.7% vs 3.3%, respectively). LLCA seemed to have more hemoglobin losses (10.50 ± 9.20 vs 5.57 ± 10. 42 g/L, <i>P</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CBTs coupled with/without CDT are safe and effective in patients with IVCT, reducing the clot burden in a moderate time, restoring blood flow rapidly, minimizing thrombolytic drug requirement and lowering minor bleeding complication compared to CDT alone. ART and LLCA have comparable outcomes but with different adverse event profiles.</p>","PeriodicalId":15281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":"28 ","pages":"10742484231171579"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endovascular Therapies Using Catheter-Based Thrombectomy or Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Non-Cancer Associated Inferior Vena Cava Thrombosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Maofeng Gong,&nbsp;Qing Zhao,&nbsp;Rui Jiang,&nbsp;Zhengli Liu,&nbsp;Boxiang Zhao,&nbsp;Jie Kong,&nbsp;Xu He,&nbsp;Jianping Gu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10742484231171579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the safety and effectiveness of catheter-based therapy (CBT) compared to conventional catheter-directed thrombosis (CDT) for non-oncological patients with inferior vena cava thrombosis (IVCT), as well to evaluate the differences between CBTs using AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy (ART) and large lumen catheter aspiration (LLCA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective single-center study included eligible patients with IVCT treated with CBTs coupled with/without CDT or CDT alone as the first-line treatment between January 3, 2015 and January 28, 2022. The baseline demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, treatment details, course data were all reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 106 patients (128 limbs) were included, with 42 cases were treated with ART, 30 with LLCA, and 34 with CDT alone. Technical success rates were 100% (128/128), and 95.5% (84/88) limbs treated with CBT subsequently underwent CDT. The mean duration of CDT time and total infusion agent dosage in patients with CBTs were lower than those who underwent CDT alone (<i>P</i> < .05). Similarities were observed in ART compared to LLCA (<i>P</i> < .05). At the end of CDT, clinical success was achieved in 85.2% (75/88) of limbs treated with CBTs and 77.5% (31/40) of limbs with CDT alone, and 88.5% (46/52) in ART and 80.6% (29/36) in LLCA. The 12-month follow-up showed slightly lower incidences of recurrent thrombosis (7.7% vs 15.2%) and post-thrombotic syndrome (14.1% vs 21.2%), which persisted in patients who underwent ART compared to LLCA (4.3% vs 12.9% and 8.5% vs 22.6%). Patients who underwent CBTs tended to have lower minor complications (5.6% vs 17.6%) but were at higher risk of transient macroscopic hemoglobinuria (58.3% vs 0%) and recoverable acute kidney injury (11.1% vs 2.9%) compared to CDT alone. These findings were similar in ART compared to LLCA (2.4% vs 10.0%, 100% vs 0%, and 16.7% vs 3.3%, respectively). LLCA seemed to have more hemoglobin losses (10.50 ± 9.20 vs 5.57 ± 10. 42 g/L, <i>P</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CBTs coupled with/without CDT are safe and effective in patients with IVCT, reducing the clot burden in a moderate time, restoring blood flow rapidly, minimizing thrombolytic drug requirement and lowering minor bleeding complication compared to CDT alone. ART and LLCA have comparable outcomes but with different adverse event profiles.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":\"28 \",\"pages\":\"10742484231171579\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10742484231171579\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10742484231171579","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨非肿瘤性下腔静脉血栓形成(IVCT)患者采用导管为基础的治疗(CBT)与常规导管定向血栓形成(CDT)的安全性和有效性,并评价采用AngioJet流变取栓(ART)与大腔管抽吸(LLCA)治疗的差异。方法:本回顾性单中心研究纳入了2015年1月3日至2022年1月28日期间接受cbt联合/不联合CDT或单独CDT作为一线治疗的IVCT患者。基线人口统计学、合并症、临床特征、治疗细节、病程数据都进行了回顾。结果:共纳入106例患者(128条肢体),其中ART治疗42例,LLCA治疗30例,CDT单独治疗34例。技术成功率为100%(128/128),95.5%(84/88)肢体经CBT治疗后行CDT。cbt组患者CDT平均持续时间和输注药物总剂量均低于单纯CDT组(P < 0.05)。ART与LLCA有相似之处(P < 0.05)。CDT结束时,接受cbt治疗的肢体的临床成功率为85.2%(75/88),单独接受CDT治疗的肢体的临床成功率为77.5% (31/40),ART治疗的临床成功率为88.5% (46/52),LLCA治疗的临床成功率为80.6%(29/36)。12个月的随访显示,与LLCA相比,ART患者的复发性血栓发生率(7.7% vs 15.2%)和血栓后综合征(14.1% vs 21.2%)的发生率略低(4.3% vs 12.9%, 8.5% vs 22.6%)。接受cbt的患者往往有较低的轻微并发症(5.6%对17.6%),但与单独CDT相比,短暂性宏观血红蛋白尿(58.3%对0%)和可恢复的急性肾损伤(11.1%对2.9%)的风险更高。与LLCA相比,ART的这些结果相似(分别为2.4%对10.0%,100%对0%,16.7%对3.3%)。LLCA似乎有更多的血红蛋白损失(10.50±9.20 vs 5.57±10)。42 g/L, P < 0.05)。结论:与单独CDT相比,cbt联合/不联合CDT治疗IVCT患者安全有效,可在中等时间内减轻血栓负担,快速恢复血流,最大限度地减少溶栓药物需求,降低轻微出血并发症。ART和LLCA的结果相当,但不良事件概况不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Endovascular Therapies Using Catheter-Based Thrombectomy or Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Non-Cancer Associated Inferior Vena Cava Thrombosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of catheter-based therapy (CBT) compared to conventional catheter-directed thrombosis (CDT) for non-oncological patients with inferior vena cava thrombosis (IVCT), as well to evaluate the differences between CBTs using AngioJet rheolytic thrombectomy (ART) and large lumen catheter aspiration (LLCA).

Methods: This retrospective single-center study included eligible patients with IVCT treated with CBTs coupled with/without CDT or CDT alone as the first-line treatment between January 3, 2015 and January 28, 2022. The baseline demographics, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, treatment details, course data were all reviewed.

Results: A total of 106 patients (128 limbs) were included, with 42 cases were treated with ART, 30 with LLCA, and 34 with CDT alone. Technical success rates were 100% (128/128), and 95.5% (84/88) limbs treated with CBT subsequently underwent CDT. The mean duration of CDT time and total infusion agent dosage in patients with CBTs were lower than those who underwent CDT alone (P < .05). Similarities were observed in ART compared to LLCA (P < .05). At the end of CDT, clinical success was achieved in 85.2% (75/88) of limbs treated with CBTs and 77.5% (31/40) of limbs with CDT alone, and 88.5% (46/52) in ART and 80.6% (29/36) in LLCA. The 12-month follow-up showed slightly lower incidences of recurrent thrombosis (7.7% vs 15.2%) and post-thrombotic syndrome (14.1% vs 21.2%), which persisted in patients who underwent ART compared to LLCA (4.3% vs 12.9% and 8.5% vs 22.6%). Patients who underwent CBTs tended to have lower minor complications (5.6% vs 17.6%) but were at higher risk of transient macroscopic hemoglobinuria (58.3% vs 0%) and recoverable acute kidney injury (11.1% vs 2.9%) compared to CDT alone. These findings were similar in ART compared to LLCA (2.4% vs 10.0%, 100% vs 0%, and 16.7% vs 3.3%, respectively). LLCA seemed to have more hemoglobin losses (10.50 ± 9.20 vs 5.57 ± 10. 42 g/L, P < .05).

Conclusion: CBTs coupled with/without CDT are safe and effective in patients with IVCT, reducing the clot burden in a moderate time, restoring blood flow rapidly, minimizing thrombolytic drug requirement and lowering minor bleeding complication compared to CDT alone. ART and LLCA have comparable outcomes but with different adverse event profiles.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics (JCPT) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original basic human studies, animal studies, and bench research with potential clinical application to cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. Experimental studies focus on translational research. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
The Role of JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway and Its Downstream Influencing Factors in the Treatment of Atherosclerosis Exposure to Electronic Waterpipes Increases the Risk of Occlusive Cardiovascular Disease in C57BL/6J Mice Thanks to Reviewers Prognostic Implications of Immature Platelet Fraction at 5-Year Follow-up Among ACS Patients Treated With Dual Antiplatelet Therapy. Assessment of Dofetilide or Sotalol Tolerability in the Elderly.
×
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