INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY / ORIGINAL PAPER
Figure from article: The DVT Recanalisation...
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a prevalent vascular condition that can lead to serious complications, including pulmonary embolism and post-thrombotic syndrome. Despite advances in endovascular therapies, the absence of a standardised method for evaluating venous recanalisation impedes consistent outcome reporting and inter-study comparisons. We developed the DVT Recanalisation Scale (DVT RS), integrating anatomical and functional criteria to provide a reproducible method for assessing recanalisation following endovascular treatment of DVT.

Material and methods:
This retrospective pilot study included 31 patients with predominantly iliofemoral DVT treated via catheter-directed thromboaspiration and other endovascular techniques. Recanalisation was assessed using phlebographic imaging acquired in multiple projections with compression manoeuvres. Four independent ope­rators (three interventional radiologists, one interventional angiologist) scored recanalisation using the DVT RS. The scale classifies recanalisation into five grades: Grade 0 (no recanalisation), Grade 1 (partial recanalisation without spontaneous flow), Grade 2A (flow with stenosis > 50%), Grade 2B (flow with residual stenosis < 50%), and Grade 3 (complete recanalisation with normal flow). A supplemental “(S)” suffix indicates use of stenting. Interobserver reliability was measured using Cohen’s k.

Results:
Interobserver agreement exceeded 90%, with Cohen’s k > 0.90 (p < 0.001), indicating excellent reproducibility based on phlebographic evaluation. While this analysis relied solely on phlebography, we recommend incorporating multimodal imaging – including intravascular ultrasound and Dyna-CT – for optimal assessment of residual stenosis and flow.

Conclusions:
The DVT RS is a reproducible and adaptable tool for standardising the assessment of venous recanalisation. It supports improved outcome reporting and facilitates robust comparisons between clinical endpoints and intravascular results. Prospective validation in larger cohorts is needed.
REFERENCES (7)
1.
Heit JA, Silverstein MD, Mohr DN, Petterson TM, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3rd, et al. The epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in the community. Thromb Haemost 2000; 83: 736-740.
 
2.
Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, Blaivas A, Jimenez D, Bounameaux H, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2016; 149: 315-352.
 
3.
Enden T, Haig Y, Kløw NE, Slagsvold CE, Sandvik L, Ghanima W, et al. Long-term outcome after additional catheter-directed thrombolysis versus standard treatment for acute iliofemoral DVT (CaVenT). Lancet 2012; 379: 31-38.
 
4.
Marder VJ, Soulen RL, Atichartakarn V, Budzynski AZ, Parulekar S, Kim JR, et al. Quantitative venographic assessment of deep vein thrombosis in the leg. Circulation 1977; 55: 864-868.
 
5.
Subcommittee on Reporting Standards in Venous Disease, Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards, Society for Vascular Surgery/North American Chapter, International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. Porter JM, Rutherford RB, Clagett GP, Cranley JJ, O’Do­nnell TF, Raju S, et al. Reporting standards in venous disease. J Vasc Surg 1988; 8: 725-738.
 
6.
Baccellieri D, Apruzzi L, Ardita V, Bilman V, De Cobelli F, Melissano G, Chiesa R, et al. Intraoperative completion cone-beam computed tomography for the assessment of residual lesions after primary treatment of proximal venous outflow obstructions. Phlebology 2021; 37: 55-62.
 
7.
Siciliano F, Ronconi E, Rossi T, Fanelli F, Krokidis M, Sirignano P, et al. Endovascular treatment of lower limb acute DVT: current trends and future directions. CVIR Endovasc 2024; 7: 82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155....
 
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top