Amerikanische Gesellschaft für Hirudotherapie

Comparison of anticoagulation vs mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis.

Research article published in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders (2024)

Zuletzt aktualisiert: June 18, 2026Geprüft von: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Randomized controlled trialKlinische StudienArzneimittelentwicklungAbramowitz S et al. · Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the comparative effects of treatment with contemporary mechanical thrombectomy (MT) or anticoagulation (AC) on Villalta scores and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) incidence through 12 months in iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT). METHODS: Patients with DVT in the Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) randomized trial and the ClotTriever Outcomes (CLOUT) registry were included in this analysis. Both studies evaluated the effects of thrombus removal on the incidence of PTS. Patients with bilateral DVT, isolated femoral-popliteal DVT, symptom duration of >4 weeks, or incomplete case data for matching covariates were excluded. Propensity scores were used to match patients 1:1 who received AC (from ATTRACT) with those treated with mechanical thrombectomy (from CLOUT) using nearest neighbor matching on nine baseline covariates, including age, body mass index, leg treated, provoked DVT, prior venous thromboembolism, race, sex, Villalta score, and symptom duration. Clinical outcomes, including Villalta score and PTS, were assessed. Logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood of developing PTS at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 164 pairs were matched, with no significant differences in baseline characteristics after matching. There were fewer patients with any PTS at 6 months (19% vs 46%; P < .001) and 12 months (17% vs 38%; P < .001) in the MT treatment group. Modeling revealed that, after adjusting for baseline Villalta scores, patients treated with AC had significantly higher odds of developing any PTS (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-6.2; P = .002) or moderate to severe PTS (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-8.4; P = .027) at 12 months compared with those treated with MT. Mean Villalta scores were lower through 12 months among those receiving MT vs AC (3.3 vs 6.3 at 30 days, 2.5 vs 5.5 at 6 months, and 2.6 vs 4.9 at 12 months; P < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: MT treatment of iliofemoral DVT was associated with significantly lower Villalta scores and a lower incidence of PTS through 12 months compared with treatment using AC. Results from currently enrolling clinical trials will further clarify the role of these therapies in the prevention of PTS after an acute DVT event.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleComparative StudyRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
Indexed MeSH termsHumansVenous ThrombosisFemaleMaleMiddle AgedFemoral VeinIliac VeinPostthrombotic SyndromeAnticoagulantsTreatment OutcomeThrombectomyTime Factors

Zusammenfassung

To compare the comparative effects of treatment with contemporary mechanical thrombectomy (MT) or anticoagulation (AC) on Villalta scores and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) incidence through 12 months in iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

Warum dies für die Hirudotherapie relevant ist

Informs the thrombolytic and fibrinolytic context against which leech-derived anticoagulant and clot-modulating compounds are evaluated.

Zitation

Comparison of anticoagulation vs mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis.

Abramowitz S et al. · Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024

Verwandter klinischer Kontext

Zur ASH-Bibliothek hinzugefügt: May 28, 2026 · Letzte Aktualisierung der Website: June 18, 2026

Diese Website stellt Bildungsinformationen bereit und ist weder eine medizinische Beratung noch eine Diagnose oder Behandlungsempfehlung. Die medizinische Blutegeltherapie ist mit klinisch relevanten Risiken verbunden und sollte ausschließlich von qualifizierten Klinikerinnen und Klinikern unter institutionell genehmigten Protokollen durchgeführt werden. Die FDA-510(k)-Zulassung für medizinische Blutegel ist auf bestimmte Indikationen beschränkt; experimentelle und Off-Label-Diskussionen werden entsprechend gekennzeichnet. Für patientenspezifische Beratung wenden Sie sich an eine qualifizierte Gesundheitsfachkraft.