Surgical intervention is not required for all patients with subclavian vein thrombosis

AbstractPurpose: The role of thoracic outlet decompression in the treatment of primary axillary-subclavian vein thrombosis remains controversial. The timing and indications for surgery are not well defined, and thoracic outlet procedures may be associated with infrequent, but significant, morbidity. We examined the outcomes of patients treated with or without surgery after the results of initial thrombolytic therapy and a short period of outpatient anticoagulation. Methods: Patients suspected of having a primary deep venous thrombosis underwent an urgent color-flow venous duplex ultrasound scan, followed by a venogram and catheter-directed thrombolysis. They were then converted from heparin to outpatient warfarin. Patients who remained asymptomatic received anticoagulants for 3 months. Patients who, at 4 weeks, had persistent symptoms of venous hypertension and positional obstruction of the subclavian vein, venous collaterals, or both demonstrated by means of venogram underwent thoracic outlet decompression and postoperative anticoagulation for 1 month. Results: Twenty-two patients were treated between June 1996 and June 1999. Of the 18 patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis, complete patency was achieved in eight patients (44%), and partial patency was achieved in the remaining 10 patients (56%). Nine of 22 patients (41%) did not require surgery, and the remaining 13 patients underwent thoracic outlet decompression through a supraclavicular approach with scalenectomy, first-rib resection, and venolysis. Recurrent thrombosis developed in only one patient during the immediate period of anticoagulation. Eleven of 13 patients (85%) treated with surgery and eight of nine patients (89%) treated without surgery sustained durable relief of their symptoms and a return to their baseline level of physical activity. All patients who underwent surgery maintained their venous patency on follow-up duplex scanning imaging. Conclusion: Not all patients with primary axillary-subclavian vein thrombosis require surgical intervention. A period of observation while patients are receiving oral anticoagulation for at least 1 month allows the selection of patients who will do well with nonoperative therapy. Patients with persistent symptoms and venous obstruction should be offered thoracic outlet decompression. Chronic anticoagulation is not required in these patients. (J Vasc Surg 2000;32:57-67.

Arterial and venous injuries in athletes : findings and their effect on diagnosis and treatment

Item does not contain fulltext191 p

Phlegmasia complicating prophylactic percutaneous inferior vena caval interruption: A word of caution

AbstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of thrombotic complications in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who were treated with percutaneous inferior vena caval interruption in place of anticoagulation.Methods: A retrospective review of all percutaneously placed inferior vena cava filters for 1 year, August 1993 through July 1994, was performed.Results: Thirty-three percutaneous inferior vena cava filters were placed in 32 patients. The underlying disease was pulmonary embolism in 15 (47%) and DVT in 17 (53%) patients. Of patients with pulmonary embolism, 11 had a documented DVT, and four were not evaluated for DVT. There were 14 men and 18 women, with a mean age of 63.5 years (range 24 to 93 years). Indications for vena caval interruption were recurrent pulmonary embolism with therapeutic anticoagulation (n = 2 [6%]), prophylactic insertion with documented pulmonary embolism and therapeutic anticoagulation (n = 8 [25%]), documented pulmonary embolism and absolute contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 5 [16%]), documented DVT and absolute contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 2 [6%]), prophylactic insertion with documented DVT and therapeutic anticoagulation (n = 5 [16%]), and documented DVT with relative contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 10 [31%]). Of the 32 patients with inferior vena cava filters, 17 were not given anticoagulants (7 absolute contraindications, 10 relative contraindications), and 15 were given anticoagulants. Insertion of a percutaneous inferior vena cava filter in patients who were not given anticoagulants was followed by the development of phlegmasia cerulea dolens in four patients (24%), which was bilateral in two patients; one patient eventually died. No patients treated with inferior vena cava filter and anticoagulation had development of phlegmasia.Conclusions: Percutaneous inferior vena caval interruption effectively prevents pulmonary embolism in patients with DVT but does not impact the underlying thrombotic process and in fact may contribute to progressive thrombosis in patients who are not given anticoagulants. Anticoagulation with intravenous heparin is safe and effective therapy for DVT in most patients. We believe that percutaneous insertion of vena cava filters should not replace anticoagulation in routine proximal DVT, and those patients who require an inferior vena cava filter for failure of anticoagulation should continue to receive heparin to treat the primary thrombotic process. We caution that relative contraindications to anticoagulation should be carefully scrutinized before recommending vena cava interruption as a primary therapy for DVT. (J VASC SURG 1995;22:606-11.

Long-term thrombotic recurrence after nonoperative management of Paget-Schroetter syndrome

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical predictors associated with long-term thrombotic recurrences necessitating surgical intervention after initial success with nonoperative management of patients with primary subclavian vein thrombosis. Sixty-four patients treated for Paget-Schroetter syndrome from 1996 to 2005 at our institution were reviewed. The standardized protocol for treatment includes catheter-directed thrombolysis, a short period of anticoagulation, and selective surgical decompression for patients with persistent symptoms. First-rib resection was performed in 29 patients (45%) within the first 3 months, with a success rate of 93%. The remaining 35 patients (55%) were treated nonoperatively and constitute this study’s population. Of the 35 patients with successful nonoperative management, 8 (23%) developed recurrent thrombotic events of the same extremity at a mean follow-up time of 13 months after thrombolysis (range, 6-33 months). These eight patients subsequently underwent first-rib resection with a 100% success rate without further sequelae at a mean follow-up time of 51 months (range, 2-103 months). The other 27 patients remained symptom free at a mean follow-up interval of 55 months (range, 10-110 months). Bivariate analyses determined that the use of a stent during the initial thrombolysis was associated with thrombotic recurrence ( P = .05). The recurrence group was also significantly younger than the asymptomatic group (22 vs 36 years; P = .01). Sex, being a competitive athlete, a history of trauma, whether the dominant arm was affected, time of delay to lysis, initial clot burden, response to original lysis, use of adjunctive balloons or mechanical thrombectomy devices, residual stenosis on venography, length of time on warfarin, and patency of the vein on follow-up duplex examination were all characteristics not associated with long-term recurrence after nonoperative management. Conservative nonoperative management of primary subclavian vein thrombosis can be successfully used with acceptable long-term results. A younger age (<28 years old) and the use of a stent during initial thrombolysis are factors associated with long-term recurrent thrombosis. Younger patients should be offered early surgical decompression, and the use of stents without thoracic outlet decompression is not indicated

Aneurysm-related death: Primary endpoint analysis for comparison of open and endovascular repair

AbstractPurpose: The purpose of this study was to utilize an objective endpoint analysis of aneurysm treatment, which is based on the primary objective of aneurysm repair, and to apply it to a consecutive series of patients undergoing open and endovascular repair. Method: Aneurysm-related death was defined as any death that occurred within 30 days of primary aneurysm treatment (open or endovascular), within 30 days of a secondary aneurysm or graft-related treatment, or any death related to the aneurysm or graft at any time following treatment. We reviewed 417 consecutive patients undergoing elective infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair: 243 patients with open repair and 174 patients with endovascular repair. Results: There was no difference between the groups (open vs endovascular) with regard to mean age ± standard deviation (73 ± 8 years vs 74 ± 8 years) or aneurysm size (64 ± 2 mm vs 58 ± 10 mm) (P = not significant [NS]). The 30-day mortality for the primary procedure after open repair was 3.7% (9/243) and after endovascular repair was 0.6% (1/174, P < .05). The 30-day mortality for secondary procedures after open repair was 14% (6/41) compared to 0% after endovascular repair (P < .05). The aneurysm-related death rate was 4.1% (10/243) after open surgery and 0.6% (1/174) after endovascular repair (P < .05). Mean follow-up was 5 months longer following open repair (P < .05). Secondary procedures were performed in 41 patients following open surgery and 27 patients following endovascular repair (P = NS). Secondary procedures following open repair were performed for anastomotic aneurysms (n = 18), graft infection (n = 6), aortoenteric fistula (n = 5), anastomotic hemorrhage (n = 4), lower extremity amputation (n = 4), graft thrombosis (n = 3), and distal revascularization (n = 1). Secondary procedures following endovascular repair consisted of proximal extender cuffs (n = 11), distal extender cuffs (n = 11), limb thrombosis (n = 3), and surgical conversion (n = 2). The magnitude of secondary procedures following open repair was greater with longer operative time 292 ± 89 minutes vs 129 ± 33 minutes (P < .0001), longer length of stay 13 ± 10 days vs 2 ± 2 days (P < .0001) and greater blood loss 3382 ± 4278 mL vs 851 ± 114 mL (P < .0001). Conclusions: The aneurysm-related death rate combines early and late deaths and should be used as the primary outcome measure to objectively compare the results of open and endovascular repair in the treatment of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. In our experience, endovascular aneurysm repair reduced the overall aneurysm-related death rate when compared to open repair. Secondary procedures are required after both open and endovascular repair. However, the magnitude, morbidity, and mortality of secondary procedures are reduced significantly with endovascular repair. (J Vasc Surg 2002;36:297-304.