A retrospective comparison of thrombectomy followed by stenting and thrombectomy alone for the management of deep vein thrombosis with May-Thurner syndrome.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the clinical results of thrombectomy with stenting (TBS) in patients with deep venous thrombosis (DVT) secondary to May-Thurner syndrome (MTS) compared with the outcomes in patients treated with thrombectomy alone (TB).

METHODS

A retrospective observation of patients with proximal DVT secondary to MTS was conducted in our institution. Patients accepted treatment including either catheter-directed TBS or TB. The complications and stent patency rates were recorded after treatments. The clinical results were assessed in both groups. The independent predictors for in-stent restenosis were further calculated in this study.

RESULTS

We included 372 patients with DVT secondary to MTS. Two hundred twenty-one patients received treatment with thrombectomy with TBS and 151 with TB. A longer mean procedure time (65.1 ± 13.9 minutes vs 49.5 ± 15.7 minutes; P < .001) and higher venous perforation rate (23 patients vs 5 patients; P = .011) were observed in the TBS group than in the TB group. The median follow-up time was 34 months. The patency rates in the TBS group at 36 months were as follows: primary patency rate of 74.0% and secondary patency rate of 92.1%. Independent predictors for restenosis included visible remaining collateral vessels (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12-3.29; P = .02), residual thrombus (HR, 1.40-4.38; P = .002), and tapered iliac vein (HR, 1.26-4.06; P = .006). Clinical results, including Venous Clinical Severity Scores (TBS, 8.0 ± 3.0; TB, 11.4 ± 3.2), Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire score (TBS, 76.4 ± 4.0; TB, 83.1 ± 4.6), Villalta scores (TBS, 3.8 ± 1.7; TB, 6.6 ± 3.2), and edema scores (TBS, 0.7 ± 0.7; TB, 1.6 ± 0.6), improved significantly in the TBS group.

CONCLUSIONS

TBS is effective and feasible for patients with proximal DVT secondary to MTS. Furthermore, compared with TB, additional stenting might be effective in improving the venous clinical results at follow-up observations.