CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 1223–1229 | Cite as

Endovascular Thrombolysis Using Monteplase for Non-chronic Deep Venous Thrombosis

  • Takuji Yamagami
  • Rika Yoshimatsu
  • Osamu Tanaka
  • Hiroshi Miura
  • Tsunehiko Nishimura
Technical Note

Abstract

This study was designed to evaluate the usefulness of endovascular thrombolysis using monteplase for deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Between December 2005 and October 2009, at our institution nine endovascular thrombolysis treatments with monteplase were performed for symptomatic DVT in eight patients (6 women, 2 men; mean age, 56 (range, 15–80) years). In all, systemic anticoagulation administered by the peripheral intravenous route with heparin and/or thrombolysis with urokinase followed by anticoagulation with orally administered warfarin had been performed, and subsequently six endovascular treatments without monteplase were administered. However, DVT persisted, and endovascular treatments with monteplase were tried. In six (67%) of the nine procedures, DVT completely or almost completely disappeared after endovascular thrombolysis with monteplase. Mean dose of monteplase used was 2,170,000 IU. There was only one procedure-related complication. In one patient, just after thrombolysis with monteplase, bleeding at the puncture site and gingival bleeding occurred. Bleeding was stopped by manual astriction only. Endovascular thrombolysis with monteplase may be an effective treatment for DVT, even in cases resistant to traditional systemic anticoagulation and thrombolysis and endovascular procedures without monteplase.

Keywords

Deep venous thrombosis Catheter-directed thrombolysis Monteplase 

References

  1. 1.
    Bjarnason H, Kruse JR, Asinger DA, Nazarian GK, Dietz CA Jr, Caldwell MD et al (1997) Iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis: safety and efficacy outcome during 5 years of catheter-directed thrombolytic therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 8:405–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sharafuddin MJ, Sun S, Hoballah JJ, Youness FM, Sharp WJ, Roh BS (2003) Endovascular management of venous thrombotic and occlusive diseases of the lower extremities. J Vasc Interv Radiol 14:405–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meissen MW, Seabrook GR, Meissener MH et al (1999) Catheter-directed thrombolysis for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: report of a national multicenter registry. Radiology 211:39–49Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yamagami T, Kato T, Iida S, Hirota T, Nishimura T (2005) Gunther tulip inferior vena cava filter placement during treatment for deep venous thrombosis of the lower extremity. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 28:442–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vedantham S, Thorpe PE, Cardella JF, Grassi CJ, Patel NH, Ferral H et al (2006) Quality improvement guidelines for the treatment of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis with use of endovascular thrombus removal. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17:435–448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Semba CP, Bakal CW, Calis KA et al (2000) Alteplase as an alternative to urokinase. Advisory panel on catheter-directed thrombolysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 11:279–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benenati J, Shlansky-Goldberg R, Meglin A et al (2001) Thrombolytic and antiplatelet therapy in peripheral vascular disease with the use of reteplase and/or abciximab. The SCVIR Consultants’ Conference; May 22, 2000, Orlando FL. Society for Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 12:795–805Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shortell CK, Queiroz R, Johansson M et al (2001) Safety and efficacy of limited-dose tissue plasminogen activator in acute vascular occlusion. J Vasc Surg 34:854–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sugimoto K, Hofmann LV, Razavi MK et al (2003) The safety and efficacy, and pharmacoeconomics of low-dose alteplase compared with urokinase for catheter-directed thrombolysis of arterial and venous occlusion. J Vasc Surg 37:512–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elliot MS, Immelman EJ, Jeffery P et al (1979) A comparative randomized trial of heparin versus streptokinase in the treatment of acute proximal venous thrombosis: an interim report of a prospective trial. Br J Surg 66:838–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akesson H, Brudin L, Dahlstrom JA et al (1990) Venous function assessed during a 5-year period after acute ilio-femoral venous thrombosis treated with anticoagulation. Eur J Vasc Surg 4:43–48CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    AbuRahma AF, Perkins SE, Wulu JT et al (2001) Iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis: conventional therapy versus lysis and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting. Ann Surg 233:752–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roy S, Laerum F (1999) Transcatheter aspiration: the key to successful percutaneous treatment of deep venous thrombosis? Acad Radiol 6:730–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nazarian GK, Bjarnason H, Dietz CA Jr et al (1996) Iliofemoral venous stenoses: Effectiveness of treatment with metallic endovascular stents. Radiology 200:193–199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verstraete M (2000) Third-generation thrombolytic drugs. Am J Med 109:52–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grunwald MR, Hofmann LV (2004) Comparison of urokinase, alteplase, and reteplase for catheter-directed thrombolysis of deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:347–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suzuki S, Saito M, Suzuki N et al (1991) Thrombolytic properties of a novel modified human tissue-type plasminogen activator (E 6010): a bolus injection of E 6010 has equivalent potency of lysing young and aged canine coronary thrombi. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 17:738–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kawai C, Hosoda S, Kimata S et al (1994) Coronary thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction of E6010 (novel modified t-PA): a multicenter, double-blind, dose-findings study. Jpn Pharmacol Ther 22:3925–3950Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kawai C, Yui Y, Hosoda S et al (on behalf of the E 6010 Study Group) (1997) A prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter trial of single bolus injection of the novel modified t-PA E 6010 in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: comparison with native t-PA. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:1447–1453Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Inoue T, Nishiki R, Kageyama M et al (2005) Therapeutic potential of monteplase in acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 5:225–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hokimoto S, Saito T, Oshima S, Ogawa H (2008) Initial and mid-term outcomes of pulse infusion thrombolysis using a unique pump system and stent placement for deep vein thrombosis. Inter Med 47:1663–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yamamoto T, Murai K, Tokita Y, Kato K, Iwasaki Y, Sato N, Tajima H, Mizuno K, Tanaka K (2009) Thrombolysis with a novel modified tissue-type plasminogen activator, monteplase, combined with catheter-based treatment for major pulmonary embolism. Circ J 73:106–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takuji Yamagami
    • 1
  • Rika Yoshimatsu
    • 1
  • Osamu Tanaka
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Miura
    • 1
  • Tsunehiko Nishimura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Graduate School of Medical ScienceKyoto Prefectural University of MedicineKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations