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

Table 36:

Summary of Findings of the Effect of Pharmacomechanical Thrombectomy Devices in Acute Lower Limb Ischemia (Arterial or Venous)

Outcome No. of participants (studies) Effect GRADEa
Relative (95% CI) Absolute (95% CI)
Arterial Acute Limb Ischemia
Limb salvage 425 (5 Obs) OR: 1.61 (0.85-3.02) 51 more per 1,000 (from 22 fewer to 95 more) ⊕ Very low
Complete thrombus removal 501 (5 Obs) OR: 1.72 (1.07-2.77) 101 more per 1,000 (14 more to 168 more) ⊕ Very low
Patency 403 (4 Obs) OR: 1.77 (1.09-2.86) 120 more per 1,000 (20 more to 198 more) ⊕ Very low
Re-thrombosis (and revision rates) 210 (3 Obs) OR: 0.55 (0.29-1.06) 118 fewer per 1,000 (208 fewer to 13 more) ⊕ Very low
Perioperative mortality 579 (6 Obs) OR: 0.95 (0.43-2.09) 3 fewer per 1,000 (32 fewer to 55 more) ⊕ Very low
Adverse events 602 (7 Obs) More renal dysfunction/acute kidney injury, hematoma, distal embolization, and mean blood loss among patients who received MT compared to control groups ⊕ Very low
Volume of thrombolytic (mg) 147 (2 Obs) There are inconsistent findings of volume of thrombolytics used among people who received MT compared to control groups ⊕ Very low
Time of thrombolytic infusion (hours) 300 (3 Obs) MD: 13.64 lower (34.89 lower to 7.61 higher) ⊕ Very low
Hospital length of stay (days after PMT 264 (3 Obs) MD: 1.10 lower (1.40 lower to 0.81 lower) ⊕ Very low
Acute Deep Vein Thrombosis
Limb Salvage 151 (1 Obs) OR: 2.63 (0.11-65.53) 8 fewer per 1,000 (90 fewer to 12 more) ⊕ Very low
Post thrombotic syndrome 266 (1 RCT) OR: 1.11 (0.65-1.91) 26 more per 1,000 (99 fewer to 160 more) ⊕⊕⊕ Moderate
993 (6 Obs) OR: 0.37 (0.26-0.54) 127 fewer per 1,000 (154 fewer to 89 fewer) ⊕ Very low
Complete thrombus Removal 430 (1 RCT) RR: 1.04 (0.89-1.22) 29 more per 1,000 (79 more to 158 more) ⊕ Very low
1,644 (12 Obs) RR: 1.07 (0.94-1.21) 43 more per 1,000 (17 fewer to 112 more) ⊕ Very low
Patency 489 (6 Obs) RR: 1.03 (0.94-1.14) 19 more per 1,000 (39 fewer to 90 more) ⊕ Very low
Re-thrombosis (and revision rates) 165 (3 Obs) There were no significant findings between study groups for freedom of re-thrombosis at 12 months, recurrence rates, or success rate where reintervention was required. ⊕ Very low
Quality of life 430 (1 RCT) MD: 4.33 higher (2.52 lower to 11.18 higher) ⊕ Very low
Perioperative mortality 430 (1 RCT) OR: 1.59 (0.16-15.46) 5 more per 1,000 (7 fewer to 108 more) ⊕⊕ Low
623 (4 Obs) There were no significant differences in mortality reported, with most studies reporting 0 in both study arms ⊕ Very Low
Adverse events 430 (1 RCT) There were fewer recurrent VTE and no significant difference in rates of bleeding between those who received MT and those who did not. Additionally, there were reported device-related events among 13.6% of patients who had received AngioJet ⊕⊕⊕ Moderate
1,823 (13 Obs) There were more cases of renal dysfunction, acute kidney injury and haemoglobinuria in some studies, while other studies had no statistically significant findings There were no statistically significant findings reported in bleedings or other complications ⊕ Very low
Volume of thrombolytic (mg) 269 (1 RCT) MD: 0 (both study groups reported the same mean volume) ⊕⊕⊕ Moderate
1,170 (9 Obs) SMD: 2.27 lower (3.6 lower to 0.95 lower) ⊕ Very low
Time of thrombolytic infusion (hours) 269 (1 RCT) MD: 2.0 lower (3.51 lower to 0.49 lower) ⊕⊕⊕ Moderate
1,236 (8 Obs) MD: 28.35 lower (45.64 lower to 11.05 lower) ⊕ Very low
Hospital length of stay (days after PMT) 359 (4 Obs) MD: 2.6 lower (5.08 lower to 0.12 lower) ⊕ Very low

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DVT, deep vein thrombosis; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MD, mean difference; MT, mechanical thrombectomy; OR, odds ratio; Obs, observational study; PMT, pharmacomechanical thrombectomy; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; SMD, standardized mean difference; VTE, venous thrombosis embolism.

Note: summary of findings table developed using GRADEpro GDT. GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University and Evidence Prime, 2022. Available from gradepro.org

a

We evaluated the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Handbook.70 See Appendix 2 for further details.