MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413286731 · doi:10.3390/medicina61081476

Interventional Procedures in Deep Venous Thrombosis Treatment: A Review of Techniques, Outcomes, and Patient Selection

2025· review· en· W4413286731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arkadiusz Kacała, Mateusz Dorochowicz, Jędrzej Fischer, Adrian Korbecki, Aleksander Truszyński, Anna Madura, Krzysztof Dyś, Andrzej Szuba, Maciej Guziński

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniwersytet Medyczny im. Piastów Slaskich we Wroclawiu
KeywordsVenous thrombosisSelection (genetic algorithm)MedicineIntensive care medicineThrombosisMedical physicsSurgeryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is associated with pulmonary embolism and long-term complications such as post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Anticoagulation prevents thrombus extension but does not actively remove clot. Interventional techniques, including catheter-directed thrombolysis, mechanical and pharmacomechanical thrombectomy, and venous stenting, have been introduced to restore venous patency and reduce complications. This systematic review summarizes current evidence on outcomes, safety, and patient selection for these procedures. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted for studies published between January 2000 and February 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and observational studies with ≥20 patients. Extracted outcomes were technical success, thrombus clearance, venous patency, PTS, quality of life, and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and AMSTAR-2. Results: Of 456 records screened, 35 studies were included. Randomized trials (CaVenT, ATTRACT, CAVA) showed that catheter-directed and pharmacomechanical approaches improved venous patency and reduced moderate-to-severe PTS in selected patients with iliofemoral DVT, though overall benefit was variable. Mechanical thrombectomy devices (e.g., AngioJet, ClotTriever, FlowTriever) achieved high thrombus clearance and shorter procedural times, with device-specific complication profiles. Observational data demonstrated venous stenting patency rates of 74–89% at 12 months. Study heterogeneity limited direct comparisons. Conclusions: Interventional procedures can reduce PTS and improve outcomes in carefully selected patients, particularly those with acute iliofemoral DVT. Modern mechanical and pharmacomechanical techniques enhance efficiency and safety, while venous stenting addresses underlying obstructions. Further high-quality trials with long-term follow-up are needed to define optimal patient selection and comparative effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicinaSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207