Thrombolysis in Deep Vein Thrombosis: Is there still an Indication?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most accepted therapy for DVT consists of anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin, followed by variable duration oral anticoagulation but thrombolytic therapy has been proposed in addition to standard anticoagulation. This paper reviews the literature on post thrombotic syndrome, the natural history of vein patency after therapy, and we perform a systematic review, using accepted standards for meta-analysis, to determine the outcomes when thrombolytic therapy is used to treat DVT. We demonstrate that thrombolytic therapy for DVT results in a significant increase in the risk of major hemorrhage and a significant increase in the rate of vein patency. However, although thrombolytic therapy is advantageous over anticoagulation as measured by early vein patency, a benefit in terms of a reduction in PTS risk, is unproven. Our review also shows that there is no evidence that there is a difference in efficacy between thrombolytic agents or that local therapy differs from systemic therapy. Finally, the potential role of catheter directed therapy is unknown since appropriate trials have not been performed but it is reasonable to use catheter directed therapy in patients with phlegmasia cerulea dolens. We conclude that more work is needed to define the role of thrombolytic therapy but it is too early to abandon this therapeutic modality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".