Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 6, 2026

An In vitro System to Gauge the Thrombolytic Efficacy of Histotripsy and a Lytic Drug
Published on: June 4, 2021
Randomized study of different approaches for catheter-directed thrombolysis for lower-extremity acute deep venous
1Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soo Chow University, Suzhou, China.
Insights
Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) effectively treats acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT). The great saphenous vein approach offers the lowest complication rate compared to small saphenous or popliteal vein routes.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Radiology
- Thrombosis Management
Background:
- Acute lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) poses significant risks.
- Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is a treatment option for DVT.
- Evaluating different vascular access routes for CDT is crucial.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and complications of CDT for acute lower-extremity DVT.
- To compare three distinct vascular access routes: small saphenous vein, great saphenous vein, and popliteal vein.
- To identify the optimal approach for CDT in DVT management.
Main Methods:
- A prospective study involving 106 patients with acute DVT.
- Patients were divided into three groups based on vascular access: small saphenous vein (n=41), great saphenous vein (n=35), and popliteal vein (n=30).
- Iliac vein interventions (balloon dilation and stenting) were performed in 65 patients.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in limb edema reduction or thrombolysis rates among the three groups.
- Procedure duration was shorter for great saphenous and popliteal vein approaches.
- The small saphenous vein group had the highest complication rate; the great saphenous vein group had the lowest.
Conclusions:
- CDT is a viable and effective treatment for acute DVT.
- The great saphenous vein approach is recommended due to its lower complication rate.
- Long-term follow-up showed positive outcomes with minimal rethrombosis.
Background/Purpose:
To investigate the feasibility, effectiveness, and complications of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) using three different approaches for acute lower-extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT).
Methods:
A total of 106 patients with acute DVT were enrolled in this study. Forty-one patients received CDT through the small saphenous vein (Group A), 35 through the great saphenous vein (Group B), and 30 through the popliteal vein (Group C). Iliac vein balloon dilation and stenting was performed in 65 cases.
Results:
The vascular approach route was not statistically related to limb edema reduction rates (Groups A, B, and C: 82.3 ± 7.6% vs. 81.6 ± 6.0% vs. 83.9 ± 6.1%), nor to thrombolysis rates (63.5 ± 7.7% vs. 66.9 ± 8.4% vs. 66.1 ± 2.7%). The procedure was significantly shorter for Groups B and C. No significant difference was found between Groups B and C. Most complications occurred in Group A. The complication rate in Group B was the lowest. Eighty-eight patients were followed up for 7-24 months. Of these, 78 were pain-free and without limb edema; six showed rethrombosis.
Conclusion:
CDT is an effective method to manage acute DVT. Of the three routes tested, the small saphenous vein route was associated with more frequent complications. Great saphenous vein catheterization was more effective because of its lower complication rate.
Related Concept Videos
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis I: Introduction
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management

