Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2025

Author Spotlight: Utilizing Venoplasty Balloon Model in Rodents to Simulate Surgical Interventions for Deep Veins
Published on: May 24, 2024
Rheolytic thrombectomy using an AngioJet ZelanteDVT catheter or a Solent Omni catheter for patients with proximal
Maofeng Gong1, Guanqi Fu1, Zhengli Liu1
1Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, 210006, People's Republic of China.
Purpose:
The present study aimed to investigate the preliminary safety and efficacy of rheolytic thrombectomy (RT) using an AngioJet Zelante DVT catheter or a Solent Omni catheter for acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT).
Material And Methods:
We conducted a retrospective review of 40 patients who were treated with an AngioJet RT between January 2019 and January 2021, and then the patients were divided into the ZelanteDVT group (n = 17) and the Solent group (n = 23). Data on demographics, clinical characteristics, technical success, clinical success, complications, and early follow-up were analysed.
Results:
No significant differences regarding demographics were detected (all p > .05). The technical success rates were both 100%. The ZelanteDVT group had a shorter duration of RT and a higher primary RT success than the Solent group (all p < .05), and the percentage of adjunctive catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) was 29.4% in the ZelanteDVT group, which was significantly lower than the 73.9% in the Solent group (p = .010). The clinical success rates for the ZelanteDVT group and Solent group were 100% (17/17) and 95.7% (22/23), respectively, and these values were high in the two groups (p > .05). Apart from transient macroscopic haemoglobinuria occurring in all the patients during the first 24 hours post-RT, none of the patients in either group suffered other procedure-related adverse events or major complications. Minor complications included bleeding events in 21.7% (5/23) of the patients in the Solent group and one (5.9%) patient in the ZelanteDVT group (p > .05). At 6 months, the frequency of PTS was 5.9% (1/17) in the ZelanteDVT group and 17.4% (4/23) in the Solent group (p > .05).
Conclusion:
Both catheters are safe and effective in managing patients with proximal DVT, thus leading to improved clinical outcomes with few complications. The ZelanteDVT catheter was more effective than the Solent catheter in thrombectomy, thus allowing for faster extraction of the DVT with a shorter run time and lower proportions of patients with adjunctive CDT.
Related Concept Videos
Venous Thrombosis III: Interprofessional Care
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Venous Thrombosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Venous Thrombosis IV: Nursing Management
Venous Thrombosis I: Introduction

