Upper extremity vein thrombosis (UE-VT) are more and more frequent pathologies and yet little studied. The aim is to describe the clinical and ultrasound features, UE-VT-related diseases, and the prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and associated deaths. All UE-VT patients diagnosed by Doppler-ultrasound in Nantes University Hospital, from January 2015 to December 2017, were included retrospectively. UE-VT suspicion patterns, clinical features, UE-VT topography, and prevalence of PE and death were analyzed. Seven hundred and fifty-five UE-VT were analyzed, including 427 deep thrombosis (UE-DVT) and 328 superficial thrombosis (UE-SVT). In 86.2% (n = 651) UE-VT were related to endovascular devices. Among these thrombosis, one third is in connection with a PICC LINE and one quarter with a peripheral venous line. Forty nine percent (n = 370) of the patients had solid neoplasia or hematological malignancies. An inflammatory or systemic infectious context was found in 40.8% (n = 308) of the cases. The most frequently observed clinical sign at the UE-VT diagnosis was edema (28.6%). Among the UE-SVT it was the presence of an indurated cord (33.2%) and among the UE-DVT the indication of the Doppler-ultrasound was mainly a suspicion of infection on endovascular device (35.1%). In 10.6% (n = 80) of the cases the UE-VT were asymptomatic. The most frequently thrombosed veins were brachial basilic veins (16.7% of all thrombosed segments) followed by jugular (13%) and subclavian (12.3%) veins; 61.3% (n = 463) of UE-VT were in the right upper extremity; 63.3% (n = 478) UE-VT were occlusive. The occurrence of PE is 4% and the death rate is 10.2%, mainly related to the severe comorbidities of patients with UE-VT. UE-VT occurs in particular clinical contexts (hematological malignancies, solid cancers, systemic infections) and in the majority of endovascular devices (86.2%). The occurrence of PE is low.
Background: Endovenous interventional procedures can be used in addition to therapeutic anticoagulation to treat deep vein thrombosis in selected patients with proximal vein involvement (vena cava, iliac and/ or common femoral). The aim of this study was to compare venous patency and the post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients treated with pharmaco-mechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PMT) versus recanalization-stenting for PTS after a proximal lower limb deep vein thrombosis. Methods: Between January 2014 and December 2020, this retrospective and monocentric study included patients with very symptomatic acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis treated with PMT within 21 days after diagnosis (PMT group) and patients with PTS caused by chronic venous obstruction treated with recanalization and stenting (CRS group).Results: A total of 116 patients were included (26 PMT, 90 CRS). The rate of primary patency was 81.8% (18/22 patients) in the PMT group and 78.4% (69/88) in the CRS group (P>0.99). The rate of venous patency at the last follow-up was 76.9% (20/26) in the PMT group and 82.2% (74/90) in the CRS group (P=0.57).The median number of stents was 2 (range, 0-5) in the PMT group and 3 (range, 0-7) in the CRS group (P<0.001). The median stent length was 150 mm (range, 60-390 mm) and 280 mm (range, 120-820 mm), respectively (P<0.001). The median last Villalta score was 2 (range, 0-10) in the PMT group and 2 (range, 0-21) in the CRS group (P=0.55). The rate of venous claudication at the last follow-up was 19.0% (4/21) in the PMT group and 12.0% (10/83) in the CRS group (P=0.47).Conclusions: In this study, there was no difference in venous patency and in the rate and severity of PTS between the PMT and CRS groups. The number of stent and their length were significantly lower in the PMT group compared with the CRS group.
Background Upper extremity venous thrombosis (UEVT) represents about 10% of venous thrombo-embolic disease. This is mainly explained by the increasing use of central venous line, for oncologic or nutritional care. The factors associated with venous recanalization are not known. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate prognosis factor associated with venous recanalization after UEVT. Methods This study included patients with UEVT diagnosed with duplex ultra-sonography (DUS) from January 2015 to December 2017 with DUS evaluations during follow-up. A multivariate Cox proportional-hazards-model analysis was performed to identify predictive factors of UEVT complete recanalization. Results This study included 494 UEVT, 304 proximal UEVT and 190 distal UEVT. The median age was 58 years, 39.5% were women. Clinical context was: hematological malignancy (40.7%), solid cancer (14.2%), infectious or inflammatory context (49.9%) and presence of venous catheters or pacemaker leads in 86.4%. The rate of recanalization without sequelae of UEVT was 38%. For all UEVT, in multivariate analysis, factors associated with complete vein recanalization were: thrombosis associated with central venous catheter (CVC) (HR:2.40, [1.45;3.95], p<0.001), UEVT limited to a venous segment (HR:1.94, [1.26;3.00], p = 0.003), occlusive thrombosis (HR:0.48 [0.34;0.67], p<0.0001), the presence of a PICC Line (HR:2.29, [1.48;3.52], p<0.001), a thrombosis of deep and distal topography (HR:1.70, [1.10;2.63], p = 0.02) or superficial thrombosis of the forearm (HR:2.79, [1.52;5.12], p<0.001). For deep and proximal UEVT, non-occlusive UEVT (HR:2.23, [1.49;3.33], p<0.0001), thrombosis associated with CVC (HR:1.58, [1.01;2.47], p = 0.04) and infectious or inflammatory context (HR:1.63, [1.10;2.41], p = 0.01) were factors associated with complete vein recanalization. Conclusion In this study, factors associated with UEVT recanalization were UEVT limited to a venous segment, thrombosis associated with CVC, a thrombosis of deep and distal thrombosis topography and superficial thrombosis of the forearm. Occlusive thrombosis was associated with the absence of UEVT recanalization.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.