ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2017
The Role of Pharmacomechanical Endovascular Intervention for Iliofemoral Vein Thrombosis Compared to Conventional Anticoagulation Therapy.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Treatment Result Between Anticoagulation Alone and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Plus Anticoagulation in Acute Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis.Vascular specialist international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although anticoagulation therapy is the primary treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), it has not been associated with the rapid recanalization of the venous occlusion. Moreover, it is associated with long-term disability due to post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). In contrast, pharmacomechanical endovascular intervention (PMI) results in more rapid clinical improvement in DVT patients, but there are few reports on its long-term outcomes. This retrospective study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of PMI compared to conventional anticoagulation therapy (ACA) for acute and subacute iliofemoral DVT. We reviewed the medical records of 102 patients with iliofemoral DVT. A total of 46 patients for ACA and 56 patients for PMI were enrolled. We analyzed the clinical differences between the PMI and ACA groups by comparing the clinical signs, residual DVT free-rate, and PTS-free rate. There were no statistically significant differences in the demographic characteristics and risk factors except age between the groups (age: ACA, 52.0 ± 18.0 years; PMI, 59.0 ± 17.0 years; P = 0.035). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year residual DVT-free rate (ACA = 84.7%, 71.6%, and 46.0%; PMI = 82.1%, 76.8%, and 76.8%, respectively; P = 0.235) was not significantly different. However, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year PTS-free rate was significantly different (ACA = 93.5%, 74.0%, and 55.7%; PMI = 92.9%, 90.0%, and 90.0%, respectively; P = 0.019). There was no significant difference in the rate of other complications. PMI showed a lower incidence of PTS during the follow-up period. Therefore, PMI should be considered as an effective therapeutic modality for patients with iliofemoral DVT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.