No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND The post-thrombotic syndrome frequently develops in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis despite treatment with anticoagulant therapy. Pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (hereafter “pharmacomechanical thrombolysis”) rapidly removes thrombus and is hypothesized to reduce the risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned 692 patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis to receive either anticoagulation alone (control group) or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (catheter-mediated or device-mediated intrathrombus delivery of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and thrombus aspiration or maceration, with or without stenting). The primary outcome was development of the post-thrombotic syndrome between 6 and 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS Between 6 and 24 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients with the post-thrombotic syndrome (47% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 48% in the control group; risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.11; P = 0.56). Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis led to more major bleeding events within 10 days (1.7% vs. 0.3% of patients, P = 0.049), but no significant difference in recurrent venous thromboembolism was seen over the 24-month follow-up period (12% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 8% in the control group, P = 0.09). Moderate-to-severe post-thrombotic syndrome occurred in 18% of patients in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group versus 24% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P = 0.04). Severity scores for the post-thrombotic syndrome were lower in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group than in the control group at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up (P<0.01 for the comparison of the Villalta scores at each time point), but the improvement in quality of life from baseline to 24 months did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis, the addition of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation did not result in a lower risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome but did result in a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ATTRACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00790335.)

Banyan Biomarkers and US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

Objective This study examined whether serum levels of GFAP breakdown products (GFAP-BDP) were elevated in mild and moderate TBI compared to controls and if they were associated with traumatic intracranial lesions on CT scan (+CT) and having a neurosurgical intervention (NSI). Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled adult patients presenting to three Level 1 Trauma Centers following blunt head trauma with loss of consciousness, amnesia, or disorientation and a GCS 9–15. Control groups included normal uninjured controls and trauma controls presenting to the ED with orthopedic injuries or an MVC without TBI. Blood samples were obtained in all patients within 4 hours of injury and measured by ELISA for GFAP-BDP (ng/ml). Results Of the 307 patients enrolled, 108 were TBI patients (97 with GCS 13–15, and 11 with GCS 9–12) and 199 were controls (176 normal controls and 16 MVC controls and 7 orthopedic controls). ROC curves demonstrated that early GFAP-BDP levels were able to distinguish TBI from uninjured controls with an AUC of 0.90 (95%CI 0.86–0.94) and differentiated TBI with a GCS 15 with an AUC 0.88 (95%CI 0.82–0.93). Thirty two TBI patients (30%) had lesions on CT. The AUC for discriminating those patients with CT lesions versus those without CT lesions was 0.79 (95%CI 0.69–0.89). Moreover, the ROC curve for distinguishing NSI from no NSI yielded an AUC of 0.87 (95%CI 0.77–0.96). Conclusions GFAP-BDP is detectable in serum within an hour of injury and is associated with measures of injury severity including the GCS score, CT lesions and neurosurgical intervention. Further study is required to validate these findings before clinical application.