ArticleScientific reports2025
Effect of endovascular management and anticoagulation alone on acute deep venous thrombosis in patients with inferior vena cava thrombosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective analysis assesses the effectiveness and safety of pharmacomechanical thrombectomy (PMT) and join CDT (catheter-directed thrombolysis) compared to CDT and with standard anticoagulation therapy for LEDVT (acute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis) with concomitant IVCT (inferior vena cava thrombosis). From January 2014 to January 2020, a total of 114 patients were diagnosed with acute LEDVT and IVCT at Shanxi Bethune Hospital. Patients were separated into three groups: PMT ± CDT (n = 77; 25 in this group also received CDT), CDT ± catheter thrombectomy (CDT ± CT) (n = 21), and conservative management (n = 16). The following outcomes were evaluated using SPSS: thrombus clearance rates, immediate clinical remission, and limb circumference decrease in the patients. The severity of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and venous patency was evaluated at 1-year and 2-year follow-ups. Our findings showed that the PMT ± CDT group had significantly greater rates of immediate clinical remission and thrombus clearance compared with CDT ± CT and conservative treatment. PMT ± CDT achieved a thrombolysis rate of 74.5%, while the CDT ± CT group had a rate of 47.2% (p < 0.001). No method of treatment significantly reduced the overall rate of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) (p = 0.301). However, PMT ± CDT had a significantly lower PTS severity than CDT ± CT (p = 0.023). Overall, venous patency scores were significantly better in the PMT ± CDT group at 1-year and 2-year follow-up time points. The results of this study suggest that PMT ± CDT was significantly better than CDT ± CT, as well as conservative management of patients with LEDVT and IVCT concerning both short-term and long-term outcomes. The findings further support a preference towards endovenous management as a treatment approach in clinical practice for patients with such complications.
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.