Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in Acute Femoral–Popliteal Deep Vein Thrombosis: Analysis from a Stratified Randomized Trial

Abstract

Background and Objectives The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial reported that pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) did not reduce post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), but reduced moderate-to-severe PTS and the severity of PTS symptoms. In this analysis, we examine the effect of PCDT in patients with femoral–popliteal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (without involvement of more proximal veins).

Patients and Methods Within the ATTRACT trial, 300 patients had DVT involving the femoral vein without involvement of the common femoral or iliac veins and were randomized to receive PCDT with anticoagulation or anticoagulation alone (no PCDT). Patients were followed for 24 months.

Results From 6 to 24 months, between the PCDT versus no PCDT arms, there was: no difference in any PTS (Villalta scale ≥ 5: risk ratio [RR] = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–1.24); moderate-or-severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥ 10: RR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.57–1.52); severity of PTS scores; or general or disease-specific quality of life (p > 0.5 for all comparisons). From baseline to both 10 and 30 days, there was no difference in improvement of leg pain or swelling between treatment arms. From baseline to 10 days, major bleeding occurred in three versus none (p = 0.06) and any bleeding occurred in eight versus two (p = 0.032) PCDT versus no PCDT patients. Over 24 months, recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 16 PCDT and 12 no PCDT patients (p = 0.24).

Conclusion In patients with femoral–popliteal DVT, PCDT did not improve short- or long-term efficacy outcomes, but it increased bleeding. Therefore, PCDT should not be used as initial treatment of femoral–popliteal DVT. (NCT00790335).

Keywords

clinical trial - post-thrombotic syndrome - thrombolytic - treatment - venous thrombosis

• References

• 1 Vedantham S, Goldhaber SZ, Kahn SR. , et al. Rationale and design of the ATTRACT Study: a multicenter randomized trial to evaluate pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis for the prevention of postthrombotic syndrome in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis. Am Heart J 2013; 165 (04) 523-530
• 2 Vedantham S, Goldhaber SZ, Julian JA. , et al; ATTRACT Trial Investigators. Pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (23) 2240-2252
• 3 Douketis JD, Crowther MA, Foster GA, Ginsberg JS. Does the location of thrombosis determine the risk of disease recurrence in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis?. Am J Med 2001; 110 (07) 515-519
• 4 Kahn SR, Shrier I, Julian JA. , et al. Determinants and time course of the postthrombotic syndrome after acute deep venous thrombosis. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149 (10) 698-707
• 5 Kahn SR, Partsch H, Vedantham S, Prandoni P, Kearon C. ; Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Definition of post-thrombotic syndrome of the leg for use in clinical investigations: a recommendation for standardization. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7 (05) 879-883
• 6 Kahn SR. Measurement properties of the Villalta scale to define and classify the severity of the post-thrombotic syndrome. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7 (05) 884-888
• 7 Vasquez MA, Rabe E, McLafferty RB. , et al; American Venous Forum Ad Hoc Outcomes Working Group. Revision of the venous clinical severity score: venous outcomes consensus statement: special communication of the American Venous Forum Ad Hoc Outcomes Working Group. J Vasc Surg 2010; 52 (05) 1387-1396
• 8 Marder VJ, Soulen RL, Atichartakarn V. , et al. Quantitative venographic assessment of deep vein thrombosis in the evaluation of streptokinase and heparin therapy. J Lab Clin Med 1977; 89 (05) 1018-1029
• 9 Ware JE, Kosinski MA, Keller S. SF-36 Physical and Mental Measures: A User's Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre; 1994
• 10 Lamping DL, Schroter S, Kurz X, Kahn SR, Abenhaim L. Evaluation of outcomes in chronic venous disorders of the leg: development of a scientifically rigorous, patient-reported measure of symptoms and quality of life. J Vasc Surg 2003; 37 (02) 410-419
• 11 Wallach JD, Sullivan PG, Trepanowski JF, Sainani KL, Steyerberg EW, Ioannidis JP. Evaluation of evidence of statistical support and corroboration of subgroup claims in randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (04) 554-560
• 12 Sun X, Briel M, Busse JW. , et al. Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ 2012; 344: e1553
• 13 Comerota AJ, Kearon C, Gu CS. , et al. Endovascular thrombus removal for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis: analysis from a Stratified Multicenter Randomized Trial. Circulation; 2018. Published ahead of print December4, 2018. Available at: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037425 . Accessed January 10, 2019
• 14 Enden T, Haig Y, Kløw NE. , et al; CaVenT Study Group. Long-term outcome after additional catheter-directed thrombolysis versus standard treatment for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (the CaVenT study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2012; 379 (9810): 31-38
• 15 Haig Y, Enden T, Grøtta O. , et al; CaVenT Study Group. Post-thrombotic syndrome after catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis (CaVenT): 5-year follow-up results of an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Haematol 2016; 3 (02) e64-e71