Clinical impact of assessing thrombus age using magnetic resonance venography prior to catheter-directed thrombolysis

Carsten W K P Arnoldussen, Pascale Notten, Rutger Brans, Dammis Vroegindeweij, Lidwine W Tick, Marlène H W van de Poel, Otmar R M Wikkeling, Louis-Jean Vleming, Ad Koster, Kon-Siong G Jie, Esther M G Jacobs, Nils Planken, Cees H A Wittens, Hugo Ten Cate, Joachim E Wildberger, Arina J Ten Cate-Hoek, Carsten W K P Arnoldussen, Pascale Notten, Rutger Brans, Dammis Vroegindeweij, Lidwine W Tick, Marlène H W van de Poel, Otmar R M Wikkeling, Louis-Jean Vleming, Ad Koster, Kon-Siong G Jie, Esther M G Jacobs, Nils Planken, Cees H A Wittens, Hugo Ten Cate, Joachim E Wildberger, Arina J Ten Cate-Hoek

Abstract

Objectives: Magnetic resonance venography (MRV) is underutilized in the evaluation of thrombus properties prior to endovascular treatment but may improve procedural outcomes. We therefore investigated the clinical impact of using a dedicated MRV scoring system to assess thrombus characteristics prior to endovascular intervention for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of data from the CAVA trial ( Clinicaltrials.gov :NCT00970619). MRV studies of patients receiving ultrasound-accelerated catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for iliofemoral DVT were reviewed. Thrombus age-related imaging characteristics were scored and translated into an overall score (acute, subacute, or old). MRV scores were compared to patient-reported complaints. MRV-scored groups were compared for CDT duration and success rate.

Results: Fifty-six patients (29 men; age 50.8 ± 16.4 years) were included. Using MRV, 27 thrombi were classified acute, 17 subacute, and 12 old. Based on patient-reported complaints, 11 (91.7%) of these old thrombi would have been categorized acute or subacute, and one (3.7%) of the acute thrombi as old. Average duration of CDT to > 90% restored patency differed significantly between groups (p < 0.0001): average duration was 23 h for acute thromboses (range: 19-25), 43 h for subacute (range: 41-62), and 85 h for old thromboses (range: 74-96). CDT was almost eleven times more successful in thromboses characterized as acute and subacute compared to old thromboses (OR: 10.7; 95% CI 2.1-55.5).

Conclusion: A dedicated MRV scoring system can safely discriminate between acute, subacute, and old thromboses. MRV-based selection is predictive of procedural duration and success rate and can help avoid unnecessary complications.

Key points: • Thrombus age, characterized by MRV as acute, subacute, and old, can predict CDT duration and probability of success. • Accurate pre-interventional MRV-based thrombus aging has the potential to facilitate identification of eligible patients and may thus prevent CDT-related complications.

Keywords: Magnetic resonance venography; Thrombolysis; Thrombosis; Thrombus.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Thrombus characteristics identified using MR-venography. Normal vein: homogeneously opacified hyperintense vein lumen. No luminal defect or perivascular) wall changes. Acute thrombosed vein: dilated homogeneously hypointense vein lumen with small enhancing rim of contrast depicting the vein wall. No (perivascular) wall changes (no halo sign). Subacute thrombosed vein: Still dilated low intensity vein lumen with thick enhancing rim of contrast, part vein wall thickening and part perivascular edema (halo sign). There are some small hyperintense areas within the thrombus as sign of recanalization. Old thrombosed vein: the vein lumen is reduced to a more ‘normal’ vein size with an opacified part (open lumen/vein wall) and a low intensity part that is still filled with thrombus-like tissue. Post-thrombotic vein: the vein lumen is smaller than the normal vein and homogeneously opacified except for 1 or more sharply demarcated very low intensity black dots and/or lines adhering to the vein wall. This represents (fibrotic) scar tissue (post-thrombotic venous scarring). Acute-on-chronic thrombosed vein: as in an acute deep vein thrombosis there is a dilated lumen with mostly hypointense material but additionally there are signs of a previous thrombotic event that has left scar tissue markings (very hypointense dots and lines)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Trial profile
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Examples of variations in characteristics of iliofemoral DVT. From left to right: examples of left-sided acute common femoral, subacute iliac and old femoro-iliac thrombi as identified in the studies examined. Notice how the acute case shows a very homogenous ‘clean’ image with subcutaneous edema. In contrast, there is extensive perivascular edema in the subacute image and more inhomogeneous signal intensities in the old image

References

    1. Enden T, Haig Y, Kløw NE, et al. Long-term outcome after additional catheter-directed thrombolysis versus standard treatment for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (the CaVenT study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9810):31–38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61753-4.
    1. Comerota AJ, Kearon C, Gu CS, et al. Endovascular thrombus removal for acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis. Circulation. 2019;139(9):1162–1173. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.037425.
    1. Notten P, Ten Cate-Hoek AJ, Arnoldussen CWKP, et al. Ultrasound-accelerated catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation for the prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome (CAVA): a single-blind, multicentre, randomised trial. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(1):e40–e49. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30209-1.
    1. Goodacre S, Sampson F, Thomas S, van Beek E, Sutton A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis. BMC Med Imaging. 2005;5:6. doi: 10.1186/1471-2342-5-6.
    1. Jain AK, Soult MC, Resnick SA, et al. Detecting iliac vein thrombosis with current protocols of lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2018;6(6):724–729. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.06.010.
    1. Comerota AJ, Sandset PM, Konstantinides S, et al. Theme 4: Invasive management of (recurrent) VTE and PTS. Thromb Res. 2015;136(Suppl 1):S19–S25. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.07.037.
    1. Fraser DGW, Moody AR, Davidson IR, Martel AL, Morgan PS. Deep venous thrombosis: diagnosis by using venous enhanced subtracted peak arterial MR venography versus conventional venography. Radiology. 2003;226(3):812–820. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2263012205.
    1. New horizons in venous disease management (2017) Diagnostic strategies (for DVT management). Edizioni Minerva Medica, Torino. Available via . Accessed 19 Nov 2020
    1. Gaitini D (2007) Multimodality imaging of the peripheral venous system. Int J Biomed Imaging 2007:54616. 10.1155/2007/54616
    1. Arnoldussen CWKP, CHA W. An imaging approach to deep vein thrombosis and the lower extremity thrombosis classification. Phlebology. 2012;27(Suppl 1):143–148. doi: 10.1258/phleb.2012.012s25.
    1. Pfeil A, Betge S, Poehlmann G, et al. Magnetic resonance VIBE venography using the blood pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium - an interrater reliability study. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(3):547–552. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.102.
    1. Arnoldussen CWKP, Strijkers RHW, Lambregts DMJ, Lahaye MJ, de Graaf R, CHA W. Feasibility of identifying deep vein thrombosis characteristics with contrast enhanced MR-Venography. Phlebology. 2014;29(1 suppl):119–124. doi: 10.1177/0268355514529697.
    1. Haig Y, Enden T, Grøtta O, et al. Post-thrombotic syndrome after catheter-directed thrombolysis for deep vein thrombosis (CaVenT): 5-year follow-up results of an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Haematol. 2016;3(2):e64–e71. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00248-3.
    1. Notten P, Arnoldussen CWKP, Brans R, et al. Association of successful ultrasound-accelerated catheter-directed thrombolysis with postthrombotic syndrome: a post hoc analysis of the CAVA trial. Thromb Haemost. 2020;120(8):1188–1199. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1713171.
    1. Baekgaard N, Foegh P, Wittens CHA, CWKP A. Thrombus age is ideally measured by history or MRV prior to thrombus removal. Phlebology. 2015;30(1 Suppl):20–26. doi: 10.1177/0268355515569434.
    1. Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(4):692–694. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2005.01204.x.
    1. Kramer U, Nael K, Laub G, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance angiography of the renal arteries using parallel imaging acquisition techniques at 3.0 T: initial experience. Invest Radiol. 2006;41(2):125–132. doi: 10.1097/01.rli.0000195838.94440.20.
    1. Danias PG, McConnell MV, Khasgiwala VC, Chuang ML, Edelman RR, Manning WJ. Prospective navigator correction of image position for coronary MR angiography. Radiology. 1997;203:733–736. doi: 10.1148/radiology.203.3.9169696.
    1. Kurstjens RLM, Van Vuuren TMAJ, De Wolf MAF, et al. Abdominal an dpubic collateral veins as indicators of deep venous obstruction. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2016;4(4):426–433. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2016.06.005.
    1. Gerretsen SC, Le Maire TF, Miller S, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries. Radiology. 2010;255(3):988–1000. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10090357.
    1. Wang J, Yan F, Liu J, et al. Multicenter, intra-individual comparison of single dose gadobenate dimeglumine and double dose gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of the peripheral arteries (the Peripheral VALUE Study) J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38(4):926–937. doi: 10.1002/jmri.24040.
    1. Arnoldussen CWKP, Lam Y, Ito N, et al. Gadobutrol versus gadofosveset-trisodium in MR venography of the lower extremities. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(12):4986–4994. doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-4902-0.
    1. Kearon C. Natural history of venous thromboembolism. Circulation. 2003;107(23 Suppl 1):I22–I30. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000078464.82671.78.
    1. Bouman AC, McPherson H, Cheung YW, et al. Clot structure and fibrinolytic potential in patients with post thrombotic syndrome. Thromb Res. 2016;137:85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2015.11.013.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel