Table 2 Summary table of pharmacomechanical thrombolysis devices.

Device	Mechanism of action	Advantages	Disadvantages	Access type (sample size)	Clinical success	Technical success	1 month patency rates
							Primary	p-value	Secondary	p-value
Angiojet Rheolytic System (Yang et al., 2012)	- Based on Venturi effect by high-speed saline jets, thrombus is sucked into the device and macerated	- 360 suction vortex which theoretically reduces number of passes	- May leave residual thrombus adherent to wall	100% AVF (n=109) 33% upper arm	76%	77%	70%	0.78	76%	1
Arrow–Trerotola percutaneous thrombectomy device (Yang et al., 2012)	- Fragmentation of clot is done via generation of hydrodynamic vortex created by high-speed rotating impeller or basket	- Simple - Low manufacturing costs - Better contact with thrombus through mechanical action	- Causes significant endothelial denudation in native vessels	100% AVF (n=106) 38% upper arm	91%	91%	76%	0.38	90%	0.11
ClariVein catheter (Lim et al., 2017)	- Infusion of thrombolytic agents combined with a rotating catheter to augment the thrombolysis process	- Rapid rotational tip may allow cleaner removal of thrombus due to rheolytic effect of high-frequency spinning of eccentric tip	- Only studied in AVGs and not AVFs due to concern of endothelial injury from angulated tip - Rotating pin is smaller calibre and rotation speed is lesser as compared to Cleaner XT, hence may be less effective for large clots	100% AVG (n=11)	100%	100%	Not measured
Cleaner XT	- Mechanical declotting of access via rotating mechanism	- May be more appropriate for AVFs - Curated for smaller lumen vessels to allow easier manipulation and effective clot maceration	- Limited data available so far	12 AVF, 5 AVG (n=17)	88%	88%	65%		76%