Catheter Interventions for Acute Deep Venous Thrombosis: Who, When and How

The role and principles of stenting in acute iliofemoral thrombosis

Catheter-directed interventions for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT) have been increasingly used over the past 15 years to target severe symptomatology and prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome incidence or reduce its severity if it were to develop. Aside from successful thrombus removal, adjunctive stents are frequently required to treat an uncovered lesion or significant residual thrombus to ensure quality of life improvement besides retarding DVT recurrence and post-thrombotic syndrome. As the evidence is mounting, the need and role for stenting, as well as the principles of an optimal technique, in the acute DVT setting are now better understood. Accumulating experience appears to favor stenting in the acute setting. The diameter of the stent, the length, the extent of overlapping, and the landing zones are crucial determinants of a successful durable outcome. This article endeavors to guide the interventionalist on stenting when encountering a patient with acute symptomatic iliofemoral DVT with concerns of quality of life impairment.

Thrombectomy of the Profunda Femoral Vein in Iliofemoral Deep Venous Thrombosis Using an Antegrade Popliteal Approach

PURPOSE

Residual or undertreated inflow disease is a major cause of stent occlusion following endovascular thrombectomy for iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT). The profunda femoral vein (PFV) is an important inflow vessel alongside the femoral vein but is traditionally challenging to treat via an antegrade popliteal approach. This technical note describes a novel approach for PFV clearance in iliofemoral thrombectomy via the popliteal vein.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight patients underwent PFV clearance as part of iliofemoral DVT thrombectomy via an antegrade popliteal approach. In seven patients, a popliteal-profunda communicating vessel was identified permitting PFV access and thrombectomy. In one patient, a popliteal-profunda communicator was not identified and an 'up and over' approach via the femoral bifurcation from the same popliteal access was utilised. Thrombectomy was performed using the Inari ClotTriever device or Penumbra's Indigo system.

RESULTS

Technical success in PFV thrombectomy was 100%. Six patients (75%) underwent stenting for an iliac stenotic lesion or May Thurner compression point. At the four-week ultrasound follow-up, the pelvic iliofemoral segment was patent in 7 patients (87.5%). The PFV was patent in 7 patients (87.5%) whereas the FV was only patent in 4 patients (50%). One patient underwent reintervention for iliofemoral stent occlusion. No PFV injury occurred and no post-procedure profunda reflux was identified.

CONCLUSION

PFV clearance can be achieved via an antegrade popliteal approach in iliofemoral thrombectomy to optimise inflow, negating the need for alternative or additional venous access. PFV may maintain upstream iliofemoral vein patency even with an occluded femoral vein.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4, Case Series.

The emerging role of mechanical thrombectomy in acute DVT management

Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) and pharmacomechanical thrombectomy in various technical combinations have been the main driver of acute deep venous interventions for over a decade. While the majority of high-level evidence was based on it, CDT requires longer procedural care and is associated to a small but not negligible bleeding risk. Contemporary DVT intervention, following the paradigm shift in myocardial infarction and stroke management, has steadily migrated towards minimizing or eliminating thrombolytics due to the introduction of mechanical/aspiration thrombectomy. Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) devices are undoubtedly improving our ability to remove thrombus more efficiently in a single session without the adverse events and complex logistics related to the use of thrombolytics.

Meta-analysis of lytic catheter-based intervention for acute proximal deep vein thrombosis in the reduction of post-thrombotic syndrome

OBJECTIVE

Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a common complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that can result in significant morbidity for the patient with detrimental impact on their quality of life. Evidence supporting lytic catheter-based interventions (LCBI) undertaken for early thrombus reduction in acute proximal DVT for the prevention of PTS is conflicting. Despite this, rates of LCBIs are increasing. To summaries the existing evidence and pool treatment effects, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of LCBIs in proximal acute DVT for the prevention of PTS was undertaken.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was undertaken aligning with PRISMA guidelines following a protocol pre-registered on PROSPERO. Online searches of Medline and Embase databases, as well as the gray literature, were performed up to December 2022. Included articles were randomized controlled trials that studied the use of LCBIs with additional anticoagulation vs anticoagulation alone and had determined follow-up periods. Outcomes of interest were PTS development, moderate to severe PTS, major bleeding episodes, and quality-of-life measures. Subgroup analyses were performed for DVTs involving the iliac vein and/r common femoral vein. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed effects model. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and GRADE assessment tools.

RESULTS

Three trials were included in the final meta-analysis, the Post-thrombotic Syndrome after Catheter-directed Thrombolysis for Deep Vein Thrombosis (CaVenT), Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT), and Ultrasound-accelerated Catheter-directed Thrombolysis Versus Anticoagulation for the Prevention of Post-thrombotic Syndrome (CAVA) trials, comprising 987 patients. Patients undergoing LCBIs had a reduced risk of PTS (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74-0.95; P = .006) and a lower risk of developing moderate to severe PTS (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.97; P = .03). LBCIs increased the risk of having a major bleed (RR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.08-3.82; P = .03). In the iliofemoral DVT subgroup analysis, there was a trend toward decreasing the risk of developing PTS and moderate to severe PTS (P = .12 and P = .05, respectively). There was no significant difference in quality-of-life score (as measured by the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study - Quality of Life/Symptoms) between the two groups (P = .51).

CONCLUSIONS

Pooling of current best evidence suggests that LCBIs in acute proximal DVT decreases the rate of PTS and moderate to severe PTS with a number needed to treat of 12 and 18, respectively. However, this is complicated by a significantly higher rate of major bleeding with a number needed to treat of 37. This evidence supports the use of LCBIs in selected patients, including those who are at low risk of major bleeding.

Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis Involving the Inferior Vena Cava: Interventional Perspectives

Extension of an iliofemoral thrombosis into the inferior vena cava (IVC), or from the IVC descending into the iliofemoral segments, can confer significant morbidity and mortality. Interventional management of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been controversial, but there is little doubt that certain subpopulations benefit, such as those with symptomatic IVC thrombosis. When considering an intervention, caval involvement introduces technical difficulties due to its larger diameter, high thrombus burden, bilateral limb clot extension and need for dual access. The frequent coexistence of an IVC filter increases the complexity even more. This review summarises the current indications and treatment modalities available for the management of acute DVT involving the vena cava.