Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 22, 2025

An In vitro System to Gauge the Thrombolytic Efficacy of Histotripsy and a Lytic Drug
Published on: June 4, 2021
Comparison of aspiration thrombectomy to other endovascular therapies for proximal upper extremity deep venous
Tim Fuller1, Evan Neville1, Jacob Shapiro1
1Department of Vascular Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital & Bethesda North Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Insights
Aspiration thrombectomy (AT) achieved 100% technical success for acute upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT). This method offers higher single-session treatment rates, potentially reducing bleeding risks compared to other techniques.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Radiology
- Thrombosis Management
Background:
- Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) can cause significant morbidity.
- Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is effective but carries hemorrhagic risks.
- Acute upper extremity DVT (UEDVT) secondary to venous thoracic outlet syndrome presents unique challenges.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the technical success of endovascular therapies for acute UEDVT.
- To compare a new mechanical aspiration thrombectomy (AT) device with non-aspiration thrombectomy (NAT) techniques.
- To assess the rate of single-session therapy and thrombus resolution.
Main Methods:
- Single-center retrospective review of 22 patients with acute symptomatic proximal UEDVT.
- Patients underwent endovascular therapy including AT, CDT, ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT), and rheolytic thrombectomy.
- Outcomes were compared between AT and NAT groups, focusing on technical success (>70% thrombus resolution) and single-session treatment.
Main Results:
- 100% technical success rate for all endovascular therapies (22/22 patients).
- Aspiration thrombectomy (AT) group showed 50% single-session therapy rate (5/10), compared to 8.3% in the non-aspiration thrombectomy (NAT) group (1/12).
- AT group used a lower average dose of thrombolytics (12.6 mg vs. 19.0 mg).
Conclusions:
- Aspiration thrombectomy (AT) demonstrates high technical success for acute UEDVT.
- AT facilitates higher rates of single-session treatment, potentially mitigating bleeding complications.
- Further research is warranted to establish AT's role in UEDVT management.
Objective:
Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) provides an effective method for clearing deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Unfortunately, CDT is associated with hemorrhagic complications. This study evaluated the technical success of the various endovascular therapies including a new mechanical aspiration thrombectomy (AT) device for the treatment of acute upper extremity DVT (UEDVT).
Methods:
This single-center retrospective review included patients with acute symptomatic proximal UEDVT secondary to venous thoracic outlet syndrome. Undergoing endovascular therapy from December 2013 to June 2019. Patients were treated with a variety of methods including CDT, ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT), rheolytic thrombectomy, and AT. We evaluated outcomes for patients undergoing AT compared with nonaspiration thrombectomy (NAT) techniques. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as resolution of more than 70% of the thrombus. The secondary end point was the ability to complete the therapy in a single session.
Results:
There were 22 patients who had endovascular management of their symptomatic proximal UEDVT. All 22 patients (100%) were successfully treated with more than a 70% thrombus resolution. Ten patients underwent AT, of which 50% (5/10) had single session therapies. Twelve patients underwent NAT (three had CDT or USAT alone; three had USAT with rheolytic thrombectomy; and six had CDT followed by rheolytic thrombectomy), with single session therapy occurring in only 8.3% of the NAT group (1/12). The average total dose of thrombolytics was 12.6 ± 9.65 mg in the AT group compared with 19.0 ± 5.78 mg in the NAT group (mean difference, -6.4; 95% confidence interval, -1.1 to 13.9). All but one of the patients in the AT group went on to have successful first rib resections. All NAT patients had successful first rib resections. A venogram was not performed at the time of decompression. All patients except one underwent resection via the infraclavicular approach, with rib removal posterior to the brachial plexus, a median of 8.0 (interquartile range, 6.0-12.0) days after DVT therapy.
Conclusions:
In this study, a technical success rate of 100% was achieved for acute symptomatic proximal UEDVT therapies. AT technology allows for higher rates of treatment in a single session, thereby minimizing a patient's risks of bleeding complications. More research is needed to further define the role of this new technology in the treatment paradigm of UEDVT management.
Related Concept Videos
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis I: Introduction
Hemodialysis I: Introduction

