ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
Percutaneous endovenous intervention versus anticoagulation in the treatment of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular treatment of lower limb acute DVT: current trends and future directions.CVIR endovascular · 2024Review
- Diagnostic and prognostic potential of long non-coding RNA NORAD in patients with acute deep vein thrombosis and its role in endothelial cell function.Thrombosis journal · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower extremity (LE) might lead to pulmonary embolism (PE) and post-thrombolytic syndrome (PTS). Recently, percutaneous endovenous intervention (PEVI) has been advocated for early removal of thrombus clot and restoration of venous patency. This study aims to review the safety and efficacy outcomes of PEVI versus anticoagulation in the treatment of acute LE-DVT. Methods: We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and/or pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (PMT) versus anticoagulation for acute proximal LE-DVT, published before August 2022. Efficacy outcomes were PTS and venous patency. Safety outcomes included recurrent thromboembolism, bleeding complications, and PE. Results: Overall, 1,266 patients were included from 6 RCTs. The overall risk of bias was small due to enrolled high-quality RCTs. Compared to anticoagulation, PEVI moderately reduced PTS incidence [odds ratio (OR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.99], obviously inhibited moderate-to-severe PTS (OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.88), significantly decreased PE (OR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.05-0.48), and substantially increased venous patency (OR 7.95, 95% CI: 1.00-63.16). There was no significant difference in recurrent thromboembolism between PEVI and anticoagulation (OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.34-1.73). Bleeding events did not differ statistically between PEVI and anticoagulation (OR 1.36, 95% CI: 0.87-2.11). We conducted single-arm meta-analysis of the PEVI or anticoagulation. Pooled proportion of PTS was less after PEVI (0.295, 95% CI: 0.123-0.505) than after anticoagulation (0.459, 95% CI: 0.306-0.616). Pooled proportion of moderate-to-severe PTS was lower after PEVI (0.098, 95% CI: 0.033-0.191) than after anticoagulation (0.183, 95% CI: 0.126-0.247). Pooled proportion of PE was smaller after PEVI (0.006, 95% CI: 0.00-0.020) as compared to anticoagulation (0.075, 95% CI: 0.038-0.122). Pooled proportion of recurrent thromboembolism was similar between PEVI (0.095, 95% CI: 0.054-0.146) and anticoagulation (0.124, 95% CI: 0.061-0.206). Pooled proportion of bleeding was not different statistically between PEVI (0.026, 95% CI: 0.00-0.131) and anticoagulation (0.008, 95% CI: 0.00-0.094). Conclusions: PEVI, consisting of PMT and/or CDT, is an extremely effective and feasible approach for patients with acute LE-DVT. In comparison to therapeutic anticoagulation, PEVI restores venous patency, inhibits the PTS development, reduces the PE occurrence, does not markedly increase the bleeding risk, but does not reduce recurrent thromboembolism.
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.