Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barth, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Uflacker, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barth, K. H.
Right arrow Articles by Uflacker, R.
(Radiology. 2000;217:678-684.)
© RSNA, 2000

Vascular and Interventional Radiology

Hydrodynamic Thrombectomy System versus Pulse-Spray Thrombolysis for Thrombosed Hemodialysis Grafts: A Multicenter Prospective Randomized Comparison1

Klemens H. Barth, MD, Mark R. Gosnell, BS, Aubrey M. Palestrant, MD, Louis G. Martin, MD, Jeffrey B. Siegel, MD, Terence A. S. Matalon, MD 2, Scott C. Goodwin, MD, Paul A. Neese, MD, Timothy L. Swan, MD and Renan Uflacker, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC (K.H.B.). Affiliations for all other authors are listed at the end of this article. From the 1998 RSNA scientific assembly. Received October 11, 1999; revision requested November 23; revision received February 1, 2000; accepted February 23. Financial support and disclosure statements appear at the end of this article. Address correspondence to K.H.B., 6405 Hillmeade Rd, Bethesda, MD 20817.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a hydrodynamic thrombectomy system in a prospective, multicenter randomized comparison with pulse-spray thrombolysis in hemodialysis grafts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine centers enrolled 120 adult patients with recently (<=14 days) thrombosed hemodialysis grafts. Graft venography was used to confirm occlusion in 62 patients randomly assigned to thrombectomy and 58 to thrombolysis. For thrombolysis, a mixture of 5,000 U of heparin and 250,000 U of urokinase was distributed throughout the thrombus, first to the venous then to the arterial graft end. For thrombectomy, the catheter was passed in the same sequence. Technical success was removal of 80% or more of thrombus. Clinical success was technical success plus the ability to dialyze. Also assessed were total procedure time, thrombus treatment time, procedure-related blood loss, other complications, and 30- and 90-day outcomes.

RESULTS: Patient demographics were comparable. Technical success rates were 95% (59 of 62) for thrombectomy and 90% (52 of 58) for thrombolysis (P = .31). Clinical success rates were 89% (55 of 62) and 81% (47 of 58), respectively (P = .24). At 30 days, 69% (43 of 62) and 66% (38 of 58), respectively, could be dialyzed through the graft (P = .70); at 90 days, the rates were 40% (25 of 62) and 41% (24 of 58), respectively (P = .91). None of these differences or those for procedure-related blood loss and early and late complications were statistically significant. Thrombus treatment times of 16.8 minutes for thrombectomy and 23.4 minutes for thrombolysis were significantly different (P < .01).

CONCLUSION: The hydrodynamic thrombectomy system is at least as efficacious and safe as pulse-spray thrombolysis but shortens thrombus treatment time.

Index terms: Dialysis, 81.42 • Efficacy study • Grafts, interventional procedures, 91.1265, 91.1269 • Grafts, stenosis or thrombosis, 91.751 • Thrombectomy, 91.1269 • Thrombolysis, 91.1265