Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 24;23(1):1–244.

Table 32:

Duration of Thrombolytic Infusion With Mechanical Thrombectomy Use in Acute and Subacute DVT in Observational Studies

Results
Author, year Outcome measurementa MT Comparator P value
PMT (AngioJet)
Garcia et al, 201585 Mean procedure time PMT: 2 h PMT + CDT: 22 h RT alone: 1.4 h RT + CDT: 41 h P < .0001
Procedures completed in less than 24 h 73% NR NA
Average run time with AngioJet 7.2 min (SD ± 6.3) NA NA
Huang et al, 202197 Mean time of thrombolytic 1.42 d (SD ± 0.32) 4.20 d (SD ± 1.25) P = .000
Lee et al, 202099 Duration of thrombolysis 27.1 h (SD ± 16.5) 35.3 (SD ± 18.2) P = .018
Li et al, 2020100 Operation procedure time 101.6 min (SD ± 47.2) 121.3 min (SD ± 17.6) P = .002
Pouncey et al, 2020103 Lysis duration PCDT: 41.5 h (95% CI: 25-47) AngioJet PowerPulse: 24.5 h (95% CI: 20-29) 48.0 h (95% CI: 47-61) P < .001
Tian et al, 2021105 Mean treatment duration 0.97 h (SD ± 0.20) 32.48 h (SD ± 7.46) P < .0001
Xu et al, 2020108 Among those with Grade III,b time of treatment 2.2 d (SD ± 5.8) 3.1 d (SD ± 0.8) P = .01
Zhu et al, 2020109 Time of thrombolysis 4.2 h (SD ± 1.7) 73.6 h (SD ± 18.3) P = .0
Vacuum Aspiration (Indigo)
No studies met our inclusion criteria for this MT device
Rotational (Rotarex or Cleaner)
We did not identify any observational studies that reported on this outcome of interest
Ultrasound Assisted (EKOS)
Baker et al, 201294 Mean overall infusion time 27 h (IQR: 21 − 27) 25 h (IQR: 22 − 39) P = .39
Lu et al, 201775 Mean lysis time 21 h (SD ± 1.7) 24 (SD ± 1.8) P = .26
Tichelaar et al, 2016106 Proportion who had a duration of intervention < 48 hc 27% (n = 9) 10% (n = 6) P < .005

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; IQR, interquartile range; MT, mechanical thrombectomy; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; PCDT, pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis; PMT, pharmacomechanical thrombectomy; RT, rheolytic thrombectomy; SD, standard deviation.

a

Urokinase dose unit of measurement was inconsistent across the studies; however, this did not inhibit our analysis as the findings of interest are relative dose differences between study groups within any individual study.

b

Findings were similar for those with Grade II, but not significantly differently among those patients with Grade I.

c

Other timeframes up to 120 hours were not significantly different between study groups.