ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Which one is the best in treating deep venous thrombosis -- percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy, catheter-directed thrombolysis or combination of them?
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. 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.
- Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy combined with catheter-directed thrombolysis improves clinical outcomes in subacute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the treatment outcomes among percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) with AngioJet, Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), and a combination of both.
methodsOne hundred forty nine patients with acute or sub-acute iliac-femoral vein thrombosis accepting CDT and/or PMT were divided into three groups respectively: PMT group, CDT group, PMT + CDT group (PMT followed by CDT). The severity of thrombosis was evaluated by venographic scoring system. Technical success was defined as restored patent deep venous blood flow after CDT and/or PMT. Clinical follow-up were assessed by ultrasound or venography imaging. The primary endpoints were recurrence of DVT, and severity level of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) during the follow-up.
resultsTechnical success and immediate clinical improvements were achieved on all patients. The proportion of sub-acute DVT and the venographic scoring in PMT + CDT group were significantly higher than that in CDT group and PMT group (proportion of sub-acute DVT: p = 0.032 and p = 0.005, respectively; venographic scoring: p < 0.001, respectively). The proportion of May-Thurner Syndrome was lower in PMT group than that in CDT and PMT + CDT group (p = 0.026 and p = 0.005, respectively). The proportion of DVT recurrence/stent thrombosis was significantly higher in CDT group than that in PMT + CDT group (p = 0.04). The severity of PTS was the highest in CDT group ( χ
conclusionPatients with sub-acute DVT, high SVS scoring and combined May-Thurner Syndrome were recommended to take PMT + CDT treatment and might have lower rate of DVT recurrence/stent thrombosis and severe PTS. Our study provided evidence detailing of PMT + CDT therapy.
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.