{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{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 1.
{Author}: Chen X;Luo Q;Xu W;Luo H;
{Journal}: Ann Vasc Surg
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jul 2
{Factor}: 1.607
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.avsg.2024.05.011
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>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.<BR><B>OBJECTIVE: </B>To compare the early efficacy of CDT using the tibial and popliteal vein approaches for the treatment of acute mixed lower extremity DVT.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>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 post-discharge complication rate of the patients in the two groups.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>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 two groups of patients.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>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.