Rheolytic thrombectomy using an AngioJet ZelanteDVT catheter or a Solent Omni catheter for patients with proximal vein thrombosis

• Published in: Thrombosis journal 2023-03, Vol.21 (1), p.25-25, Article 25
• Main Authors: Gong, Maofeng, Fu, Guanqi, Liu, Zhengli, Zhou, Yangyi, Kong, Jie, Zhao, Boxiang, Lou, Wensheng, Gu, Jianping, He, Xu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: AngioJet; Anticoagulants; Blood clot; Blood clots; Care and treatment; Catheters; Compression therapy; Contraindications; Deep vein thrombosis; Medical equipment and supplies industry; Medical test kit industry; Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy; Radiology, interventional; Success; Suctioning; Thrombosis; Ultrasonic imaging; Veins & arteries; ZelanteDVT catheter
• ISSN: 1477-9560; 1477-9560
• DOI: 10.1186/s12959-023-00472-9

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). 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. 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). 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). 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.