2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.03.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The ATTRACT Trial Becomes More Attractive

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(14 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, there was no advantage for the additional use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with anticoagulation alone with respect to the prevention of PTS in a recently published study [9]. Restrictively, this could be due to the fact that patients with iliofemoral as well as femoropopliteal DVT have been included in this trial [9][10][11]. Thus, a subgroup analysis of this study shows a benefit in the reduction of severe PTS for the use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis, limited to patients with an iliofemoral DVT [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, there was no advantage for the additional use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with anticoagulation alone with respect to the prevention of PTS in a recently published study [9]. Restrictively, this could be due to the fact that patients with iliofemoral as well as femoropopliteal DVT have been included in this trial [9][10][11]. Thus, a subgroup analysis of this study shows a benefit in the reduction of severe PTS for the use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis, limited to patients with an iliofemoral DVT [11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…13 However, the rationale behind early thrombus removal was put into question after the results of the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter Directed Thrombolysis) were published, 14 which suggested that early intervention of acute DVT did not reduce PTS. 15,16 Reasons behind the discordance between the ATTRACT trial conclusions and others' experience have been extensively discussed, [10][11][12] and include: (i) the use of outdated technology; (ii) heterogeneous techniques; (iii) inclusion of both femoro-popliteal and iliofemoral DVTs; (iv) a very low stenting rate; and (v) a lack of follow-up imaging to verify the open vein hypothesis. Catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the treatment of IFDVT is expensive as it requires more than one interventional session and a prolonged hospital stay to yield successful outcomes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, the patency rates of stents used to treat underlying stenosis in acute IFDVTs are high, comparable to those for non‐thrombotic lesions and better than those for post‐thrombotic obstruction 13 . However, the rationale behind early thrombus removal was put into question after the results of the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter Directed Thrombolysis) were published, 14 which suggested that early intervention of acute DVT did not reduce PTS 15,16 . Reasons behind the discordance between the ATTRACT trial conclusions and others' experience have been extensively discussed, 10–12 and include: (i) the use of outdated technology; (ii) heterogeneous techniques; (iii) inclusion of both femoro‐popliteal and iliofemoral DVTs; (iv) a very low stenting rate; and (v) a lack of follow‐up imaging to verify the open vein hypothesis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%