Antegrade and Retrograde Approaches with a Mechanical Thrombectomy Device for the Treatment of Acute Lower Limb Deep Vein Thrombosis

Objective: To examine the efficacy of antegrade and retrograde approaches with the AngioJet thrombectomy device for the treatment of acute lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and to evaluate the necessity of filter placement.

Methods: The clinical data of patients with acute lower limb DVT treated with the AngioJet device from January 2021 to June 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into the antegrade and retrograde treatment groups according to the surgical approach and the direction of valve opening. The thrombosis interception rate of the filter, incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE), thrombectomy effectiveness, venous obstruction rate, and thrombosis recurrence rate of each treatment group were evaluated. In addition, factors affecting patency were analyzed.

Results: AngioJet was employed for 84 patients with acute lower limb DVT, treating a total of 88 limbs. The thrombosis interception rate of the filter was 35.7% (30 patients). The incidence of new PE or PE exacerbation was 6.0% (5 patients), and a filter retrieval rate of 97.6% (82 patients) was detected. Thrombus removal of grade III occurred in 35 (64.8%) of the 54 limbs (61.4%) in the antegrade treatment group versus 13 (38.2%) of the 34 limbs (38.6%) in the retrograde treatment group (P < 0.05). At 3 months, venous patency and bleeding events involved 52 (96.3%) and 4 (7.4%) limbs in the antegrade treatment group, respectively, versus 29 (85.3%) and 2 (5.9%) in the retrograde treatment group, respectively (P > 0.05). Regression analysis was performed to determine factors that may affect 3-month patency in both groups. Statistically significant linear relationships were found between 3-month patency and thrombus removal rate [odds ratio [OR] = 0.546 (0.326, 0.916)], thrombus formation time [OR = 1.018 (1.002, 1.036)], and preoperative thrombosis score [OR = 1.012 (1.002, 1.022)] in the antegrade treatment group, as well as thrombus removal rate [0.473 (0.229, 0.977)] in the retrograde treatment group. In regression analysis of factors affecting patency in both groups and the venous clinical severity score/Villalta score, a statistically significant linear relationship was found between thrombus formation time and the venous clinical severity score in the antegrade treatment group [0.576 (0.467, 0.710)].

Conclusions: Both antegrade and retrograde approaches are safe and effective for the treatment of acute lower limb DVT. There are no differences in 3-month deep vein patency and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) incidence rates. Individuals with acute lower limb DVT are at high risk of thrombus shedding after treatment with AngioJet thrombectomy, and placement of a vena cava filter (VCF) is recommended for effective interception.