Impact of inferior vena cava thrombus extension on thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Inferior vena cava (IVC) thrombosis may occur in patients with iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and its impact on thrombolysis outcomes is poorly defined. This study compared outcomes of patients undergoing thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral DVT with and without IVC involvement. METHODS: Patients who underwent thrombolysis for iliofemoral DVT between May 2007 and March 2014 were identified from a prospectively maintained database and divided into two groups: those with IVC involvement and those without. End points were technical and clinical success (≥50% lysis or freedom from 30-day DVT recurrence), long-term DVT recurrence, and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS; Villalta score ≥5). Multivariate regression models were used to determine predictors of anatomic and clinical failures. RESULTS: There were 102 patients (127 limbs) treated with various combinations of catheter-directed or pharmacomechanical thrombolysis. In 46 patients, thrombus extended into the IVC (54.3% extended up to the renal veins; 87% had ≥50% luminal reduction; 50% occurred in association with an indwelling thrombosed IVC filter). The caval group had fewer women and more previous DVTs but otherwise was similar to the noncaval group. Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis was used more frequently in the caval thrombus group (97.8% vs 82.1%; P = .011), and iliac vein stenting was used more often in the noncaval group (41.3% vs 62.5%; P = .033). Clinical success was similar between the two groups (88.7% for caval vs 89.3% for noncaval; P = .921). All failures in the caval group occurred in patients with an indwelling thrombosed IVC filter. Primary patency at 2 years for the caval and noncaval groups was 76.7% and 78.0%, respectively (P = .787). Valve reflux and PTS at 2 years were higher in the noncaval group (50.8% and 34.3% vs 23.3% and 11.5% in the caval group; P = .013 and P = .035). On multivariate analysis, incomplete lysis was predictive of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 22.7; P < .001) and PTS (HR, 5.59; P = .010), whereas caval involvement (HR, 0.22; P = .005) was protective from PTS. CONCLUSIONS: IVC thrombosis does not have an impact on the technical success of thrombolysis in patients with iliofemoral DVT; the presence of a thrombosed IVC filter, though, may make failure more likely. Caval thrombosis may not affect primary patency but is associated with a lower incidence of PTS after successful lysis.

Inferior vena cava filter placement during thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the need for inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and to identify anatomic and patient-specific risk factors associated with embolization in patients undergoing thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis (DVT). METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent catheter-directed thrombolysis or pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (PMT) for iliofemoral DVT from May 2007 to March 2012 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were categorized in two groups, depending on the status of IVC filtration during the lysis procedures: patients with an IVC filter protection (group A) and patients without an IVC filter protection (group B). The primary outcome was perioperative clinically significant pulmonary embolism (PE) or intraprocedural IVC filter clot capture. RESULTS: Eighty patients (mean age, 50 ± 16 years; 39 women) with symptoms averaging 12 ± 10 days were treated. A perioperative IVC filter was placed in 32 patients, and nine patients had an indwelling patent filter (group A, n = 41). Twenty patients received no filter, and 19 patients had an indwelling thrombosed filter (group B, n = 39). There were no clinically significant PE in either group. In group A, nine patients (22%) had documented embolic clot within the filter nest. The clot volume was deemed clinically significant in only two patients (5%). Factors related to embolization included female gender (odds ratio [OR], 5.833; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.038-32.797; P = .032) and preoperative clinical PE (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.043-30.081; P = .054). A trend for increased embolization was seen with a higher average number of DVT risk factors (1.44 vs 1; P = .065) and when PMT was used as a single treatment (OR, 4.32; 95% CI, 0.851-21.929; P = .087). CONCLUSIONS: IVC filters during thrombolysis should be used selectively in patients with preoperative clinical PE, in women and potentially in patients with multiple risk factors for DVT, or when stand-alone PMT is planned.