-
North American Spine Society Journal Mar 2024Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a potentially devastating complication after surgery. Spine surgery is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is a potentially devastating complication after surgery. Spine surgery is associated with an increased risk of postoperative bleeding, such as spinal epidural hematomas (SEH), which complicates the use of anticoagulation. Despite this dilemma, there is a lack of consensus around perioperative VTE prophylaxis. This systematic review investigates the relationship between chemoprophylaxis and the incidence rates of VTE and SEH in the elective spine surgical population.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies published after 2,000 that compared VTE chemoprophylaxis use in elective spine surgery. Studies involving patients aged < 18 years or with known trauma, cancer, or spinal cord injuries were excluded. Pooled incidence rates of VTE and SEH were calculated for all eligible studies, and meta-analyses were performed to assess the relationship between chemoprophylaxis and the incidences of VTE and SEH.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising a total of 220,932 patients. The overall pooled incidence of VTE was 3.2%, including 3.3% for DVT and 0.4% for PE. A comparison of VTE incidence between patients that did and did not receive chemoprophylaxis was not statistically significant (OR 0.97, p=.95, 95% CI 0.43-2.19). The overall pooled incidence of SEH was 0.4%, and there was also no significant difference between patients that did and did not receive chemoprophylaxis (OR 1.57, p=.06, 95% CI 0.99-2.50).
CONCLUSIONS
The use of perioperative chemoprophylaxis may not significantly alter rates of VTE or SEH in the elective spine surgery population. This review highlights the need for additional randomized controlled trials to better define the risks and benefits of specific chemoprophylactic protocols in various subpopulations of elective spine surgery.
PubMed: 38204918
DOI: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2023.100295 -
Current Problems in Cardiology Mar 2022Cardiovascular injury with SARS-CoV-2 infection is well known. Several studies have outlined baseline characteristics in patients presenting with STEMI and SARS-CoV-2.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular injury with SARS-CoV-2 infection is well known. Several studies have outlined baseline characteristics in patients presenting with STEMI and SARS-CoV-2. Paucity in data exists in selective coronary involvement in patients with STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
A systematic search and meta-analysis of studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria obtained from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed utilizing PRISMA criteria. The main outcome was likelihood of coronary artery involvement among patients with STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 versus without SARS-CoV-2. The primary adverse outcome measured was in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS
The final analysis included 5 observational studies with a total of 2,266 patients. There was no statistical significance in LM (OR 1.40; 95% CI: 0.68, 2.90), LAD (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.83, 1.43), LCX (OR 1.17; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.85), or RCA (OR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.30, 1.17) disease among the 2 groups. LAD disease was the most prevalent coronary involvement among patients with STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 (49.6%). Higher in-hospital mortality was observed in the STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 group (OR 5.24; 95% CI: 3.63, 7.56).
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis demonstrated no statistical significance in selective coronary involvement in patients with STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The higher mortality among patients with SARS-CoV-2 and STEMI has been noted in prior studies with concerns being late presentation due to fear of infection, delayed care time, and poor resource allocation. Focus should be placed on identifying and managing comorbidities to reduce mortality.
Topics: COVID-19; Coronary Vessels; Humans; Pandemics; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; SARS-CoV-2; ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 34718033
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101032 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2023Internal fixation with cephalomedullary nails has been widely used in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures (IFF). Yet, the difference in efficacy and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Internal fixation with cephalomedullary nails has been widely used in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures (IFF). Yet, the difference in efficacy and safety between the commonly used integrated dual-screw cephalomedullary nail (InterTAN) and single-screw cephalomedullary nail remains inconclusive. Thus we performed the present systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies comparing InterTAN with proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (PFNA), the Asian PFNA (PFNA-II), or the Gamma3 nail in treating IFF were searched on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception to April 30, 2023. The differences in perioperative parameters and clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI). The risks of various complications and mortality were assessed by risk ratio (RR) with 95%CI.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies comprising 3566 patients were included. Compared with single-screw cephalomedullary nails (PFNA/PFNA-II, Gamma3), InterTAN conferred significantly reduced risk of implant failures (RR = 0.37, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.51, P < 0.001), hip and thigh pain (RR = 0.70, 95%CI 0.55 to 0.90, P = 0.006) and all-cause revision/reoperation (RR = 0.38, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.57, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients treated with InterTAN had significantly higher 1-year Harris Hip Score (MD = 0.82, 95%CI 0.20-1.44, P = 0.010) and shorter time to union/healing (MD = - 0.66 days, 95%CI - 1.16 to - 0.16, P = 0.009). Femoral neck shortening, time to full bearing, and incidences of non-union, infection, deep venous thrombosis, and mortality were comparable between both groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The integrated dual-screw InterTAN construct has superior performance in reducing risks of complications and improving clinical and functional outcomes in the treatment of IFF. More well-designed, high-quality RCTs are warranted to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Hip Fractures; Femur Neck; Wound Healing; Bone Screws; Femur
PubMed: 37599361
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04103-x -
Europace : European Pacing,... Nov 2023Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.
Topics: Humans; Defibrillators, Implantable; Vena Cava, Superior; Device Removal; Lasers; Cardiac Catheterization; Pacemaker, Artificial; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37882609
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euad316 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Nov 2017Endothermal treatment of the great saphenous vein (GSV) has become the first-line treatment for superficial venous reflux. Nonthermal ablation has potential benefits for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Endothermal treatment of the great saphenous vein (GSV) has become the first-line treatment for superficial venous reflux. Nonthermal ablation has potential benefits for acceptability by patients and decreased risk of nerve injury. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of mechanochemical endovenous ablation (MOCA) and cyanoacrylate vein ablation (CAVA) for GSV incompetence.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases were searched for papers published between January 1966 and December 2016. Eligible articles were prospective studies that included patients treated for GSV incompetence and described the primary outcome. Exclusion criteria were full text not available, case reports, retrospective studies, small series (n < 10), reviews, abstracts, animal studies, studies of small saphenous vein incompetence, and recurrent GSV incompetence. Primary outcome was anatomic success. Secondary outcomes were initial technical success, Venous Clinical Severity Score, Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score, and complications.
RESULTS
Fifteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Pooled anatomic success for MOCA and CAVA was 94.7% and 94.8% at 6 months and 94.1% and 89.0% at 1 year, respectively. Venous Clinical Severity Score and Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire score significantly improved after treatment with MOCA and CAVA.
CONCLUSIONS
These results are promising for these novel techniques that could serve as alternatives for thermal ablation techniques. However, to determine their exact role in clinical practice, high-quality randomized controlled trials comparing these novel modalities with well-established techniques are required.
Topics: Ablation Techniques; Aged; Cyanoacrylates; Endovascular Procedures; Epidemiologic Methods; Female; Humans; Male; Saphenous Vein; Tissue Adhesives; Venous Insufficiency
PubMed: 29037363
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2017.05.022 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Apr 2023Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as a possible pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effectiveness and safety of direct oral anticoagulants compared to conventional pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in hip fracture patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended as a possible pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, current guidelines did not introduce recommendations for administration of DOACs as an option for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery (HFS). The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of DOACs administered for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing HFS to conventional pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, as well as mortality between these thromboprophylaxis medications.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of multiple electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients who were subjected to HFS and prescribed either DOACs as pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis or a conventional VTE prophylaxis drug. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing effectiveness, safety and mortality of these agents between the patient groups studied. Three endpoints were studied. The first one regarding the effectiveness of the agents included clinical manifestations of VTE. The second one regarding the safety of the agents included clinical presentation of bleeding. The latter endpoint studied was mortality of patient groups studied. We generated forest plots to depict the relative risk of the above clinical manifestations between the two studied patient groups and to investigate if there is statistical significance for each patient group to present any of these clinical manifestations. Additionally, we calculated the inconsistency (I) statistic and assessed the risk of bias of RCTs included in our meta-analysis by using the modified Cochrane collaboration tool.
RESULTS
We selected 2 RCTs in this review including 279 patients totally. Patients of control groups in both eligible studies were administered enoxaparin, which is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference between patients prescribed DOACs and patients prescribed LMWH for VTE (95% CI 0.19 to 1.13, RR=0.46, p=0.09), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (95% CI 0.21 to 1.32, RR=0.53, p=0.17) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (95% CI 0.03 to 3.12, RR=0.33, p=0.33), major bleeding events (95% CI 0.57 to 1.78, RR=1.01, p=0.97), minor bleeding events (95% CI 0.72 to 1.64, RR=1.09, p=0.69), all bleeding events (95% CI 0.79 to 1.38, RR=1.05, p=0.74) and mortality (95% CI 0.01 to 8.0, RR=0.33, p=0.5). The major risk of bias of the selected RCTs was the fact that either the researchers or the patients could have knowledge whether the latter were administered DOACs or LMWHs.
DISCUSSION
DOACs are not inferior compared to LMWHs regarding their effectiveness, safety and mortality in patients subjected to HFS. Further studies with larger patient samples should be conducted in the future, so that safer results and conclusions could be reached.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Venous Thromboembolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Enoxaparin; Hemorrhage; Hip Fractures
PubMed: 35817368
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2022.103364 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Neonatal parenteral nutrition may be delivered via peripheral cannulas or central venous catheters (umbilical or percutaneous). As the result of complications associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neonatal parenteral nutrition may be delivered via peripheral cannulas or central venous catheters (umbilical or percutaneous). As the result of complications associated with umbilical catheters, many neonatal units prefer to use percutaneous catheters after initial stabilisation. Although they can be difficult to place, these catheters may be more stable than peripheral cannulae and require less frequent replacement. These delivery methods may be associated with different risks of adverse events, including acquired invasive infection and extravasation injury.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of infusion of parenteral nutrition via percutaneous central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae on nutrient input, growth and development and complications among hospitalised neonates receiving parenteral nutrition in terms of adverse consequences such as bacteraemia or invasive fungal infection, cardiac tamponade or other extravasation injuries.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2015) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2015), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials that compared delivery of intravenous fluids (primarily parenteral nutrition) via percutaneous central venous catheters versus peripheral cannulae in hospitalised neonates.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data using standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We found six trials recruiting a total of 549 infants. One trial showed that use of a percutaneous central venous catheter was associated with a smaller deficit between prescribed and actual nutrient intake during the trial period (mean difference (MD) -7.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.02 to -3.2). Infants in the percutaneous central venous catheter group needed significantly fewer catheters/cannulae (MD -4.3, 95% CI -5.24, -3.43). Meta-analysis of data from all trials revealed no evidence of an effect on the incidence of invasive infection (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; typical risk difference (RD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Data from one small trial suggest that use of percutaneous central venous catheters to deliver parenteral nutrition increases nutrient input. The significance of this in relation to long-term growth and developmental outcomes is unclear. Three trials suggest that use of percutaneous central venous catheters decreases the number of catheters/cannulae needed to deliver nutrition. No evidence suggests that percutaneous central venous catheter use increases risks of adverse events, particularly invasive infection, although none of the included trials was large enough to rule out an effect on uncommon severe adverse events such as pericardial effusion.
Topics: Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheterization, Peripheral; Extravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Materials; Humans; Infant, Extremely Low Birth Weight; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26439610
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004219.pub4 -
International Angiology : a Journal of... Jun 2021Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the most common chronic complication of deep vein thrombosis. Recent studies suggested that iliac stenting in chronic obstructive...
INTRODUCTION
Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is the most common chronic complication of deep vein thrombosis. Recent studies suggested that iliac stenting in chronic obstructive venous disease is safe and effective. However, systematic reviews focusing on mid-term efficacy of iliac stenting in post-thrombotic syndrome are lacking. This systematic review aimed to analyze mid-term stent patency rates and clinical outcomes of iliac stenting in post-thrombotic syndrome.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Two databases were searched: Pubmed/Medline and Scopus. Articles published between January 2000 and July 2020 were selected and titles and abstracts were independently reviewed. Eighteen articles were included for the qualitative analysis. From this initial set of articles, fourteen articles were included for the quantitative analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, 1008 patients were included in this study. The pooled technical success rate was 96%. The pooled primary and secondary patency rates were 98.2% and 100% at 30 days, 78.1% and 94.5% at 12 months and 66.3% and 89.4% at 36 months, respectively. The rates of ulcer healing, pain and edema relief were 78.1%, 53.4% and 48.8%, respectively. The pooled rate of complications including intraoperative venous injury, back pain and stent fracture were 28%, 57.1%, and 5.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Iliac venous stenting in PTS presents durable mid-term patency rates, as well as significant symptomatic improvement. Therefore, endovascular treatment should be considered in symptomatic patients with PTS.
Topics: Humans; Iliac Vein; Postthrombotic Syndrome; Stents; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Patency
PubMed: 33739078
DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.21.04659-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Preterm birth remains the major risk factor for the development of intraventricular haemorrhage, an injury that occurs in 25% of very low birth weight infants.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Preterm birth remains the major risk factor for the development of intraventricular haemorrhage, an injury that occurs in 25% of very low birth weight infants. Intraventricular haemorrhage is thought to be venous in origin and intrinsic thromboses in the germinal matrix are likely to play a triggering role. Heparin activates antithrombin and promotes the inactivation of thrombin and other target proteinases. The administration of anticoagulants such as heparin may offset the increased risk of developing intraventricular haemorrhage and may also reduce the risk of developing parenchymal venous infarct, a condition known to complicate intraventricular haemorrhage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether the prophylactic administration of heparin reduces the incidence of germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage in very preterm neonates when compared to placebo, no treatment, or other anticoagulants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015), MEDLINE (1996 to 22 November 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 22 November 2015) and CINAHL (1982 to 22 November 2015), applying no language restrictions. We searched the abstracts of the major congresses in the field (Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand and Pediatric Academic Societies) from 2000 to 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, quasi-randomised controlled trials and cluster trials comparing the administration of early, i.e. within the first 24 hours of life, heparin in very preterm infants (gestational age < 32 weeks).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each of the included trials, two authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, dose of heparin, mode of administration, and duration of therapy, etc.) and assessed the risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomisation, blinding, completeness of follow up). The primary outcomes considered in this review are intraventricular haemorrhage, severe intraventricular haemorrhage and neonatal mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
Two randomised controlled trials enrolling a total of 155 infants met the inclusion criteria of this review. Both trials compared low-dose heparin to the same solution without heparin in very preterm newborns requiring umbilical catheterisation. No trials were identified that specifically studied the use of heparin in infants at risk of germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage.We found no differences in the rates of intraventricular haemorrhage (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.41; typical RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.12; 2 studies, 155 infants; I² = 57% for RR and I² = 65% for RD), severe intraventricular haemorrhage (typical RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.23; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11; 2 studies, 155 infants; I² = 0% for RR and I² = 0% for RD) and neonatal mortality (typical RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.67; typical RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.06; 2 studies, 155 infants; I² = 28% for RR and I² = 50% for RD). We judged the quality of the evidence supporting these findings as very low (rates of intraventricular haemorrhage) and low (severe intraventricular haemorrhage and neonatal mortality) mainly because of limitations in the study designs and the imprecision of estimates. We found very few data on other relevant outcomes, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pulmonary haemorrhage and patent ductus arteriosus; and no study assessing long-term outcomes (e.g. neurodevelopmental disability).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited data on the effect of prophylactic administration of heparin on the incidence and severity of IVH in very preterm neonates. Both the identified trials used heparin in the context of maintaining umbilical line patency and not specifically as an agent to prevent germinal matrix-intraventricular haemorrhage. Given the imprecision of our estimates, the results of this systematic review are consistent with either a benefit or a detrimental effect of heparin and do not provide a definitive answer to the review question. Limited evidence is available on other clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Cerebral Ventricles; Heparin; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27148674
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011718.pub2 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Mar 2019Stent placements are considered as a treatment for post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) with iliofemoral obstruction, but the application of these iliofemoral venous stents... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Stent placements are considered as a treatment for post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) with iliofemoral obstruction, but the application of these iliofemoral venous stents has also caused a lot of controversy. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise the efficacy and safety of venous stents in PTS with obstruction in iliofemoral venous segments.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases and key references were searched up to 15 January 2018. The main relevant outcomes included technical success, peri-operative complications, symptom resolution, a change of symptom scores, and long-term patency of the stents.
RESULTS
Overall, 504 limbs of 489 patients from seven studies were included in this study. A GRADE assessment showed the quality of the evidence was "very low" for 11 relevant outcomes. The technical success rate was 95%. The pooled rate of complications including 30 day thrombotic event, per-operative venous injury, and back pain was 3.4%, 18.14%, and 52%, respectively. The rates of ulcer healing, pain and oedema relief were 75.66%, 52%, and 42%, respectively. The primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates were 83.36%, 90.59%, and 94.32%, respectively, at 12 months and 67.98%, 82.26%, and 86.10%, respectively, at 36 months.
CONCLUSIONS
Endovenous stenting has the potential to be effective and has a low risk of peri-operative complications. The quality of evidence to support this treatment is very low. Endovenous iliofemoral stenting should be considered a treatment option for PTS with iliofemoral obstruction.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Endovascular Procedures; Female; Femoral Vein; Humans; Iliac Vein; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Postthrombotic Syndrome; Risk Factors; Stents; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Patency; Young Adult
PubMed: 30414801
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.09.022