These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [The treatment of deep venous thrombosis. Thrombolysis vs heparin].
    Author: Schmutzler R.
    Journal: Phlebologie; 1990; 43(4):656-65; discussion 666. PubMed ID: 2093922.
    Abstract:
    Acute and subacute deep venous thrombosis can be followed by two serious complications: pulmonary embolism feared in the early stadium and the postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) as a late complication. After a lapse of months and years there might appear a complete or incomplete recanalization, but the valves of the veins will be destroyed. Therefore it is understandable to strive first an active therapy as thrombectomy or thrombolysis to remove thrombosis. There will be released a physiological tissue plasminogen activator from the endothelium of the vein increasing a local fibrinolytic activity. But it is not strong enough to reopen the occlusion within a few days. This is only possible adding exogenous activators as streptokinase, urokinase and recently rt-PA. Heparin is well known at low-dose subcutaneously for thrombosis prophylaxis. The high doses of heparin infusion intravenously with 30-40,000 units daily are used "therapeutically" inhibiting growth-promotion of the thrombus and reducing the incidence of pulmonary embolism markedly. In respect of a postthrombotic syndrome (oedema, leg ulcers) it needs the evaluation of the early and follow up late results and the analysis of efficiency and risk of the two models of treatment. It was necessary comparing the success rate of reopening of the occluded veins after some days and follow up 5 or 6 years in clinical studies. The reopening rate in thrombolysis was about 3 times higher than in heparin therapy. But in contrast bleeding was 3 times lower in heparin therapy. For the long term follow up, physical examination, doppler-sonography phlebodynamometry and vein occlusion plethysmography were assessed. The acute intervention, regarding treatment, turned out to be the crucial prognostic parameter. Syndromes and clinical findings did indeed correlate quite well with the outcome of fibrinolytic treatment. Postthrombotic syndrome was rare in cases with complete patency. In cases where patency was only partially or not at all achieved, postthrombotic syndrome was present to a higher degree the more central and the more extensive the remaining thrombus was. In deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity thrombolytic therapy is recommended mostly to younger patients with acute, the popliteal and the femoral vein including thrombosis, except of contraindications. More over in each of an individual case it has to be decided whether the aggressive or conservative therapy is to prefer.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]