Systematic Review of Pharmacologic and Compression Therapies for Treatment of Post-Thrombotic Syndrome
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Abstract 4207 Background: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a chronic complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) characterized by chronic pain, swelling and other signs in the affected limb that can severely impact individuals' quality of life. There are no widely accepted treatments for PTS, although varied treatment strategies have been proposed. Objective: To systematically review evidence for the effectiveness and safety of pharmacologic and compression therapies for treatment of PTS. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PTS treatments were sought in a search of PubMed and by reverse citation searches. Results: A total of 121 titles were reviewed and 12 full-text publications were assessed for inclusion. Seven trials were selected for inclusion in the review. Four trials (3 parallel RCTs, 1 crossover RCT) including 521 patients assessed the effectiveness of various drugs for treatment of PTS. These pharmacotherapies included rutosides, hidrosmin, and defibrotide and treatment durations ranged from 2–12 months. Three trials (1 parallel RCT, 2 crossover RCTs) including 82 patients assessed compression therapies. Two used intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices worn for 4–8 weeks, while one used continuous compression in the form of graduated compression stockings (GCS) worn for at least 1 year. Follow-up in these studies ranged from 8 weeks to over 1 year. All studies identified PTS as occurring after DVT in the same leg, often requiring objective diagnosis of DVT. One study used CEAP criteria for venous insufficiency, including patients classified as C2, C3 or C4. Another required participants to have had deep venous insufficiency (not further defined) for at least 12 months. Two studies used the Villalta scale to classify patients as having PTS, while one study only included patients with a score >14, corresponding to severe PTS. Another study defined PTS as the presence of chronic and typical pain and swelling 1 year post-DVT, and another defined it as intractable symptoms causing significant limitations of lifestyle and/or morbidity. In one study, PTS was not defined. Indicators used to assess the success of the interventions varied. Clinical signs and symptoms were often assessed with a quantitative scoring system. Validated scales used included Kakkar & Lawrence, Villalta, and VEINES-Sym. Calf and ankle circumference were often measured, where significant differences in these measures were used to attest to the success of an intervention; however, the clinical significance of these changes may be questionable. The IPC studies defined treatment success based on factors such as perceived benefit, patient preference for the active treatment, and willingness to continue to use the intervention. The GCS study defined treatment failure based on symptom deterioration, work absences, and development of venous ulcer. Only 1 study assessed the effect on quality of life, using the VEINES-QOL questionnaire. Studies of pharmacotherapies demonstrated minimal benefit on symptom scores, reduced calf and ankle circumference, and ulcer healing. In one study that continued to follow-up subjects for 6 months after treatment was terminated, the effect of drug treatment was not sustained (50% of ulcers returned). Studies of compression therapy did not convincingly demonstrate benefits of GCS; but for the IPC devices, treatment success was more likely than on the placebo devices. None of these treatments were associated with any important side effects and hence, compliance was acceptable in all studies that reported it. Studies of pharmacologic and compression therapies for treatment of PTS suffer from study design limitations including lack of blinding and wash-out periods that have the potential to introduce bias. Short duration of treatment in some studies may limit the extent to which the interventions were found to be effective. Sustained effectiveness was not assessed except for one study. Conclusions: There is limited and low quality evidence for the effectiveness of rutosides, hidrosmin, and defibrotide to treat PTS. There is also limited and low quality evidence for the effectiveness of GCS, but IPC devices seem to provide at least short term relief from PTS. More rigorous studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of pharmacologic and compression treatments for PTS, and study endpoints should focus on clinically important improvements in patient condition. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,024 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».