ArticleVascular specialist international2019
Comparison of Treatment Result Between Anticoagulation Alone and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Plus Anticoagulation in Acute Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis.
Article in Vascular specialist international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs. Anticoagulation in Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Endovascular treatment of lower limb acute DVT: current trends and future directions.CVIR endovascular · 2024Review
- Exploring the Clinical Efficacy of Venous Thromboembolism Management in Saudi Arabian Hospitals: An Insight into Patient Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Observation of Uninterrupted Thrombolytic Therapy via Indwelling Catheter for Lower Limb Deep Vein Thrombosis.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDeep vein thrombosis (DVT) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Anticoagulation has been the primary treatment modality for acute DVT. However, catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has recently become widely accepted as an additional therapy to anticoagulation. We assessed comparative outcomes in patients with acute DVT who underwent anticoagulation therapy alone (ACA) group and those treated with CDT group. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed medical records of 149 patients with DVT from January 2011 to December 2015. We compared patients who received ACA group (n=120) and those who received CDT plus anticoagulation (CDT group, n=29). We analyzed the prevalence of lesions, thrombus removal rate in each lesion, and recurrence-free rate between the two groups.
resultsWe found thrombus involvement in a total of 281 lesions in the ACA group and 85 lesions in the CDT group. For the distribution of lesions in each group, those in the femoral vein accounted for 34.2% of all lesions and those in the popliteal vein accounted for 31.7%. During follow-up, the overall thrombus removal rate was 91.1% in the ACA group and 87.0% in the CDT group (P=0.273). The recurrence-free rate was higher in the CDT group in a log-rank test; however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P=0.594).
conclusionAccording to our results, there was no significant difference in thrombus removal and recurrence-free rates between the CDT and ACA groups. ACA still has an important role in the treatment of 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.