ArticleClinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
Comparative Analysis of Two Strategies for Iliac Vein Stenting: Thrombus Clearance-Assisted Versus Direct Stenting.
Article in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of mechanical thrombus clearance combined with stenting versus direct stenting alone in patients with iliofemoral venous disease,, and to analyze the characteristics of different diagnostic subgroups among non-thrombotic patients.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 137 patients who underwent iliac vein stent implantation between January 2020 and March 2025. Based on the presence of acute/subacute thrombosis and surgical strategy, patients were divided into a Thrombus Treatment Group (Angiojet thrombus aspiration + stenting, n=87) and a Non-Thrombotic Treatment Group (direct stenting, n=50). Within the Non-Thrombotic Group, further stratification yielded Subgroup A (pure iliac vein compression syndrome, n=29) and Subgroup B (associated thrombotic disease, e.g., post-thrombotic syndrome, n=21). Baseline characteristics, perioperative data, and 3-6 month follow-up outcomes were compared.ResultsPatients in the Thrombus Treatment Group were older (70.2±11.4 vs. 62.1±7.2 years, P<0.001), required fewer stents (1.3±0.6 vs. 1.8±0.9, P<0.001), but had longer procedure times (122.7±38.3 vs. 87.8±51.3 minutes, P<0.001). No significant differences were found between the two main groups in post-operative ultrasound patency rates (69.1% vs. 59.1%, P=0.243) or adverse event rates (2.5% vs. 6.8%, P=0.224). Subgroup analysis revealed that compared to Subgroup A, Subgroup B had a higher prevalence of prior DVT history (47.6% vs. 0%, P<0.001) and pre-operative swelling symptoms (81.0% vs. 6.9%, P<0.001), and required more complex procedures (stent use: 2.3±1.0 vs. 1.5±0.7, P<0.001). However, short-term follow-up outcomes were similar between the subgroups.ConclusionFor iliofemoral venous disease with concomitant thrombosis, a strategy of thrombus clearance combined with selective stenting can reduce stent usage while achieving short-term efficacy comparable to direct stenting alone in its respective clinical context. Among non-thrombotic patients, the subgroup with thrombosis-related disease presents distinct clinical features and higher procedural complexity, yet still benefits from endovascular reconstruction.
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.