Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt approach and local thrombolysis for treatment of early posttransplant portal vein thrombosis

Early portal vein thrombosis is a rare but severe posttransplant complication that may lead to graft and/or patient loss. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting and local thrombolysis may represent an easy solution to this major complication of liver transplantation.     

Percutaneous mechanical fragmentation and stent placement for the treatment of early posttransplantation portal vein thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Early portal vein thrombosis is a rare but severe complication of liver transplantation requiring retransplantation or at least surgical thrombectomy, both hampered by high morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We describe of a case of successful long-term recanalization of early posttransplantation portal vein thrombosis by a minimally invasive percutaneous transhepatic angiographic approach using both mechanical fragmentation and pharmacological lysis of the thrombus followed by stent placement. RESULTS: Mechanical fragmentation and contemporaneous local urokinase administration resulted in complete removal of the clot; the use of a vascular stent after balloon dilatation allowed restoration of normal blood flow to the liver after 9 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This case report confirms the possibility of successful recanalization of the portal vein after early posttransplantation thrombosis by a minimally invasive angiographic approach. Balloon dilatation and placement of a vascular stent could help to decrease the risk of recurrent thrombosis.     

Variceal hemorrhage associated with portal vein thrombosis: treatment with a unique portal venous stent.

A patient with an uncommon cause of portal venous hypertension, pancreatitis, is depicted. The patient had an equally uncommon pattern of symptoms and signs consisting of abdominal pain and lower gastrointestinal hemorrhage caused by colonic varices. A unique treatment, with angiographic placement of an expandable intraluminal stent within the portal vein, was employed to reopen the portal venous system and reduce portal pressure. Relief of bleeding was accomplished and sustained for more than 1 year.     

支架植入术后导管接触性溶栓治疗髂静脉重度狭窄伴急性深静脉血栓形成

目的观察支架植入术后导管接触性溶栓(CDT)治疗髂静脉重度狭窄伴急性深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的效果。方法对42例髂静脉重度狭窄伴急性DVT行支架植入术联合CDT治疗,对其中22例(观察组)于植入支架后行CDT治疗,20例(对照组)于CDT治疗后植入支架。对比2组尿激酶用量、导管溶栓时间、静脉系统评分、患肢消肿率、并发症及随访情况。结果 2组技术成功率均为100%。观察组尿激酶用量和导管溶栓时间均低于对照组(P均0.05)。术后2组静脉系统评分均较术前降低(P均0.05),但组间术前及术后评分差异均无统计学意义(P均0.05)。术后2组患肢(大腿及小腿)消肿率差异均无统计学意义(P均0.05)。术后4例(观察组、对照组各2例)导管留置部位轻微出血,未见肺栓塞、颅内出血等严重并发症。随访3个月时观察组1例出现左侧小腿肌间静脉血栓,增加利伐沙班剂量至15 mg/d抗凝后复查深静脉超声显示静脉血流通畅;随访6个月时2组髂静脉支架通畅率均为100%。结论支架植入术后CDT治疗髂静脉重度狭窄伴急性DVT安全有效,且相比先溶栓后植入支架可缩短溶栓时间、减少尿激酶用量。     

Percutaneous transhepatic thrombectomy and pharmacologic thrombolysis of mesenteric venous thrombosis

Mesenteric venous occlusion is a rare yet highly morbid condition that is traditionally treated with anticoagulation while surgery serves as the last resort. Percutaneous intervention provides an effective option with relatively low mortality and morbidity. We herein describe use of transhepatic percutaneous thrombectomy and pharmacologic thrombolysis in treating two cases of symptomatic mesenteric venous thrombosis. These cases underscore the fact that transhepatic thrombectomy and thrombolysis are a highly effective strategy for treating acute symptomatic mesenteric venous thrombosis. Several percutaneous techniques are also reviewed.     

Transhepatic thrombolysis in acute portal vein thrombosis after laparoscopic splenectomy

Portal vein thrombosis is a relatively rare clinical entity that can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Because of the risk of intestinal infarction, acute symptomatic portal vein thrombosis requires prompt intervention. Traditional treatment has included anticoagulation and/or systemic thrombolytic therapy. We report the successful management of acute portal vein thrombosis with percutaneous transphepatic thrombolytic therapy. In addition to the potential for improving regional clot lysis through direct infusion of the thrombolytic agent, this method may result in fewer systemic side effects than occur with other available treatment modalities.     

深静脉血栓形成的腔内治疗进展

深静脉血栓形成（deepvein thrombosis,DVT）是临床多发病,在美国每年有约50万DVT病人,据不完全统计,其中约有1％。发展为致命性肺栓塞（pulmonary embolism,PE）。我国近年来DVT的发病率也逐渐升高,引起致命性PE而导致猝死的报道也屡屡可见。DVT的治疗方式主要有药物、外科手术及腔内治疗等,近年随着腔内技术和腔内器械的发展。关于DVT腔内治疗的报道也越来越多,本文对其进展进行简要综述。     

经小隐静脉置管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成

目的评价小隐静脉置管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的临床疗效。方法 25例急性下肢DVT患者,经小隐静脉溶栓导管直接插入静脉血栓,微泵推注尿激酶(168.45±82.34)万U溶栓。以术前、后的健、患肢周径差及静脉通畅度评价疗效。结果置管溶栓治疗后,膝上周径减少[(4.9±0.8)cmvs(1.4±0.5)cm,P<0.01);膝下周径减少[(3.8±0.6)cmvs(1.0±0.4)cm,P<0.01]。术前、后静脉通畅度评分显著改善(7.6±1.5vs1.8±0.7,P<0.01)。治疗过程中无严重并发症。结论经小隐静脉置管溶栓治疗下肢DVT是一种安全高效的治疗方法。     

Catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) represents a significant clinical problem, affecting patients of all age groups, nationalities, and socioeconomic strata. Despite its prevalence, the paradigms for care are largely centered around primary or secondary prophylaxis, with less emphasis on actual treatment of the thrombus. With the recent rapid development of advanced endovascular techniques, it is now feasible to dissolve many thrombi using catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), and favorable clinical experience has been reported in over 600 patients. If performed safely, the purported benefits of CDT for DVT include a decreased incidence of persistent phlebitic symptoms, improved quality of life and, possibly, a decreased incidence of recurrent thrombotic events.     

导管溶栓术治疗下肢深静脉血栓

静脉血栓栓塞性疾病(VTE)是外科多发病.2004年,Baldwin等[1]综合文献资料指出,在发展中国家每年有患者3000～6000万人,80岁男性患病率为10.7%.VTE大多为下肢深静脉血栓形成(DVT).2001年,Nicolaides等[2]报道,心脑血管意外、髋关节置换术、多发性创伤、全膝置换术和髋部骨折等,并发DVT者占40%～50%;而心肌梗死、前列腺切除术、脊柱损伤和神经外科手术等,则为20%～30%.据统计,美国每年因DVT并发肺栓塞(PE)致死者约20万人.DVT的治疗效果一直不能令人满意,经导管灌注溶栓药物的溶栓疗法(CDT),文献报道已超过600例,显著提高DVT的疗效.     

门静脉和肠系膜上静脉血栓形成的CT、MRI诊断

目的探讨门静脉（PV）和肠系膜上静脉（SMV）血栓形成的CT、MRI征象及其诊断价值。方法回顾性分析25例经手术与病理证实的PV-SMV血栓形成病例CT和MRI检查资料。结果PV-SMV血栓形成的直接征象CT表现为PV-SMV血管内充盈缺损,PV周围呈轨道样增强;MRI表现为PV和SMV正常流空信号消失;急性、亚急性期血栓T1WI呈等或高信号,T2WI呈高信号;GD-DTPA增强扫描静脉期PV-SMV管腔内对比剂充盈缺损。PV-SMV血栓形成的间接征象包括肠腔扩张积液,肠管积血,肠壁增厚,肠黏膜水肿,薄纸样肠壁,缆绳征,肠系膜积液,肠壁积气,腹腔积液,门静脉海绵样变,肝脏异常灌注。结论CT、MRI是诊断PV-SMV血栓形成最有效的影像检查方法,MRI对PV-SMV血栓形成的定位、定量及血栓的分期优于CT。     

经腘静脉插管定向溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成的临床研究

目的评价腘静脉插管定向溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓的疗效。方法 62例下肢深静脉血栓患者,行患肢腘静脉穿刺插管,在可视条件下将导管插入至血栓近心端,经导管首次推注尿激酶20万单位后,持续注射尿激酶10万单位／h溶栓,同时每12 h皮下注射低分子肝素钠400 U。以下肢肿胀消退情况评价疗效,以深静脉造影评价溶栓效果。结果经导管溶栓治疗不仅使深静脉血栓部分或完全消融,而且侧支循环开放较治疗前显著增加。患肢总消肿率(78±22)％,总溶栓率(67± 27)％,其中急性、急慢性和慢性病例溶栓率分别为75％、71％,49％,前两者显著高于后者(P< 0．05)。21例患者血栓完全消融,无严重并发症发生。结论 腘静脉插管定向溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成能够快速溶解血栓,恢复深静脉血流通畅,患者临床症状改善效果满意,治疗方案安全可靠。     

经小隐静脉插管导管溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓形成

目的 探讨经小隐静脉途径置管直接溶栓治疗急性混合型下肢深静脉血栓形成的临床应用价值. 方法分析2005年6月至2007年3月收治的37例急性混合型下肢深静脉血栓形成患者的资料,均经小隐静脉穿刺置溶栓导管插入深静脉血栓,微泵持续推注尿激酶(149±71)万IU直接溶栓.以静脉造影结果的静脉通畅评分和静脉通畅率评价疗效.结果 全组患者溶栓后症状明显改善,与溶栓前比较,静脉通畅评分差异有统计学意义(Z=-5.330,P＜0.01),静脉通畅率改善50%±15%,无严重并发症.本组37例,随访22例随访时间6～18个月,平均(12±4)个月,复查静脉造影.按随访时间6～12个月、13～18个月分两组,结果与溶栓前比较.6～12个月组,静脉通畅评分改善有统计学意义(Z=-3.545,P＜0.01),静脉通畅率为58%±13%;13～18个月组,静脉通畅评分改善有统计学意义(Z=-2.201,P＜0.05),静脉通畅率为68%±20%.结论 经小隐静脉置管直接溶栓治疗急性混合型下肢深静脉血栓形成,是一种安全,可行的治疗方法.     

门静脉和肠系膜上静脉血栓形成的介入治疗

目的评价介入技术治疗门静脉 (PV)和肠系膜上静脉 (SMV)血栓形成的安全性和效果。方法对 6例诊断为PV和SMV血栓形成的患者进行了经颈静脉途径经肝穿刺门静脉 (TIPS)介入治疗。经TIPS途径穿刺PV分支成功后插入导管做PV SMV造影 ,然后用 8F导管抽吸血栓 ,同时用“J”形导丝和猪尾形导管捣碎血栓 ,间断将尿激酶 (UK)经多侧孔导管注入PV和SMV。清除大部分血栓后 ,保留多侧孔导管至SMV内持续溶栓 3～ 13d。结果 6例治疗均成功 ,1例术后 12d死于腹腔脓肿。随访 4个月至 3年 ,5例健在 ,Doppler超声波复查显示PV和SV血流通畅 ,无血栓复发。结论经TIPS途径介入技术 ,包括用导管抽吸、捣碎血栓和局部溶栓治疗 ,是治疗急性症状性PV和SMV血栓形成的安全、有效方法     

急性下肢深静脉血栓形成局部置管溶栓与外周静脉溶栓的比较

目的 比较急性下肢深静脉血栓形成经局部及外周静脉抗凝溶栓治疗的效果,以指导临床治疗.方法 回顾性分析我院2001年1月至2008年5月期间收治的225例下肢深静脉血栓形成患者的临床资料,按照治疗方法分A、B两组.A组为经股深静脉置管抗凝溶栓治疗患者,共71例,左侧47例,右侧20例,双侧4例;B组为经外周静脉抗凝溶栓治疗的患者,共154例,左侧121例,右侧27例,双侧6例.通过监测患者临床症状、测量下肢周径变化比较两组治疗效果.结果 A组患者治疗3 d后好转率优于B组患者(94.4%比69.5%,P＜0.01).治疗7 d后,A组的治愈率虽然优于B组患者,但差异无统计学意义(85.9%比75.3%,P＞0.05).治疗后平均随访(43±18)个月,两组的并发症及复发率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 股静脉置管局部溶栓治疗的早期疗效优于经外周静脉给药,但两种方法的中远期治疗效果相似.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the efficacy of anticoagulation and thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis via local vein approach and peripheral vein approach to guide clinical treatment. Methods There were 225 patients with deep venous thrombosis admitted from January 2001 to May 2008. The cases were divided into two groups by therapy procedures. The patients in group A were treated by deep femoral vein catheter-directed anticoagulation and thrombolysis, including a total number of 71 patients, with right lower extremity in 20 patients, left lower extremity in 47 patients and bilateral lower extremities in 4 patients. One hundred and fifty-four patients were included in group B with anticoagulation and thrombolysis through peripheral vein, among them right lower extremity in 27 patients, left lower extremity in 121 patients and bilateral lower extremities in 6 patients. The efficacy was evaluated and compared by observing clinical symptoms and measuring of changes in limb circumference. Results Symptoms were alleviated in all patients in 3 d after the treatment, but the efficacy of group A was better than group B (94. 4% vs. 69. 5% ,P＜0. 01). The efficacy of group A was also better than group B in 7 days after treatment, but with no significant difference (85. 9% vs. 75. 3% , P ＞0. 05). A mean follow-up period was (43 ±18) months.There was no significant difference in incidence of complication and recurrence between two groups.Conclusions The earlier efficacy of anticoagulation and thrombolysis via femoral vein approach is better than via peripheral vein approach in earlier period of deep venous thrombosis. While peripheral intravenous therapy has also good results after long-term treatment.     

髂静脉支架在下肢深静脉血栓形成治疗中的应用

为探讨髂静脉支架在下肢深静脉血栓形成应用中的临床意义。笔者回顾性分析20例下肢深静脉血栓患者的临床资料。全部病例髂静脉支架置放成功，展开良好，无1例发生移位或髂静脉破裂出血。     

急性下肢深静脉血栓形成局部置管溶栓与外周静脉溶栓的比较

Objective To investigate the efficacy of anticoagulation and thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis via local vein approach and peripheral vein approach to guide clinical treatment. Methods There were 225 patients with deep venous thrombosis admitted from January 2001 to May 2008. The cases were divided into two groups by therapy procedures. The patients in group A were treated by deep femoral vein catheter-directed anticoagulation and thrombolysis, including a total number of 71 patients, with right lower extremity in 20 patients, left lower extremity in 47 patients and bilateral lower extremities in 4 patients. One hundred and fifty-four patients were included in group B with anticoagulation and thrombolysis through peripheral vein, among them right lower extremity in 27 patients, left lower extremity in 121 patients and bilateral lower extremities in 6 patients. The efficacy was evaluated and compared by observing clinical symptoms and measuring of changes in limb circumference. Results Symptoms were alleviated in all patients in 3 d after the treatment, but the efficacy of group A was better than group B (94. 4% vs. 69. 5% ,P＜0. 01). The efficacy of group A was also better than group B in 7 days after treatment, but with no significant difference (85. 9% vs. 75. 3% , P ＞0. 05). A mean follow-up period was (43 ±18) months.There was no significant difference in incidence of complication and recurrence between two groups.Conclusions The earlier efficacy of anticoagulation and thrombolysis via femoral vein approach is better than via peripheral vein approach in earlier period of deep venous thrombosis. While peripheral intravenous therapy has also good results after long-term treatment.     

急性下肢深静脉血栓形成局部置管溶栓与外周静脉溶栓的比较

Objective To investigate the efficacy of anticoagulation and thrombolysis for deep venous thrombosis via local vein approach and peripheral vein approach to guide clinical treatment. Methods There were 225 patients with deep venous thrombosis admitted from January 2001 to May 2008. The cases were divided into two groups by therapy procedures. The patients in group A were treated by deep femoral vein catheter-directed anticoagulation and thrombolysis, including a total number of 71 patients, with right lower extremity in 20 patients, left lower extremity in 47 patients and bilateral lower extremities in 4 patients. One hundred and fifty-four patients were included in group B with anticoagulation and thrombolysis through peripheral vein, among them right lower extremity in 27 patients, left lower extremity in 121 patients and bilateral lower extremities in 6 patients. The efficacy was evaluated and compared by observing clinical symptoms and measuring of changes in limb circumference. Results Symptoms were alleviated in all patients in 3 d after the treatment, but the efficacy of group A was better than group B (94. 4% vs. 69. 5% ,P＜0. 01). The efficacy of group A was also better than group B in 7 days after treatment, but with no significant difference (85. 9% vs. 75. 3% , P ＞0. 05). A mean follow-up period was (43 ±18) months.There was no significant difference in incidence of complication and recurrence between two groups.Conclusions The earlier efficacy of anticoagulation and thrombolysis via femoral vein approach is better than via peripheral vein approach in earlier period of deep venous thrombosis. While peripheral intravenous therapy has also good results after long-term treatment.     

The case for thrombolysis for iliofemoral venous thrombosis

Deep venous thrombosis and its consequences remain a significant clinical challenge despite advances in the current healthcare system. The use of thrombolytic therapy has played an important role in the management of both arterial and venous thrombotic conditions. In this article, relevant clinical evidence and rationale in support of thrombolytic therapy in ileofemoral deep venous thrombosis are discussed.