方法:回顾性分析2012年6月—2017年6月收治的121例急性混合型LEDVT患者资料,其中60例先吸栓再导管溶栓治疗(吸栓后溶栓组),61例直接行导管溶栓治疗(单纯溶栓组),比较两组患者的相关临床指标。
结果:两组治疗前一般资料无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。与单纯溶栓组比较,吸栓后溶栓组平均住院 天数明显 缩短(6.2 d vs. 10.5 d,P<0.05),尿激酶平均用量 明显减少(170 万 U vs. 290 万 U,P<0.05);吸栓后溶栓组与单纯溶栓组术后1周的治愈率和有效率分别为75%、45.9%与91.67%、88.52%,术后2周分别为83.33%、62.3%与96.72%,91.81%,吸栓后溶栓组治愈率明显高于单纯溶栓组(均P<0.05),有效率两组间差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。术后随访12个月,两组并发症发生率、膝下15 cm处健患肢周径差降低程度、静脉通畅率、静脉瓣膜功能正常率以及总有效率差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。
结论:与单纯导管溶栓相比较,吸栓后溶栓能明显缩短急性混合型LEDVT患者住院时间,减少尿激酶用量,提高治愈率,但中长期疗效差异不大。
临床医生对下肢深静脉血栓(lower extremity deep venous thrombosis,LEDVT)认识越来越深刻,尤其是对急性混合型LEDVT,早期血栓脱落易导致肺栓塞(pulmonary embolism,PE)[1],治疗不及时,会导致不同程度瓣膜破坏,静脉反流[2],即出现血栓后综合征[3](post-thrombotic syndrome,PTS)。因此,对此疾病的早期诊断治疗均越来越受重视[4]。目前,以微创手段抽栓、导管溶栓等治疗方式已成为治疗急性混合型LEDVT的主流[5]。为观察吸栓联合导管溶栓及单纯导管溶栓对急性混合型LEDVT的疗效,回顾性分析我院自2012年6月—2017年6月收治的121例急性混合型LEDVT的临床资料,现将结果报告如下。
入组患者均处于急性期,类型均为混合型LEDVT,根据症状、体征及彩超、造影明确诊断。121例患者中,60例行吸栓联合导管溶栓治疗(吸栓后溶栓组),61例行单纯导管溶栓治疗(单纯溶栓组)。两组患者主要症状为患肢非凹陷性水肿,胀痛、腓肠肌压痛,皮肤颜色变红,皮温升高等。两组间临床资料数据差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)(表1)。入组标准:(1)初次发生混合型LEDVT;(2)发病时间≤7 d。排除标准:(1)抗凝、溶栓禁忌者;(2)严重肾功能障碍者,肌酐清除率<30 mL/min;(3)晚期肿瘤患者,预计寿命<12个月;(4)周围型LEDVT患者。
表1 121例急性混合型LEDVT患者一般临床资料
Table 1 The general clinical data of the 121 patients with acute mixed LEDVT
资料 吸栓后溶栓组(n=60)单纯溶栓组(n=61)t/χ2/Z P年龄(岁, ±s)58.72±11.9556.53±12.571.460.16发病时间(d,
±s)3.86±2.163.69±2.620.700.54性别[n(%)]男31(51.67)29(47.54)0.240.73女29(48.33)32(52.46)病变肢体[n(%)]左41(68.33)35(57.38)2.210.15右19(31.67)26(42.62)健、患肢周径差(cm,
±s)膝上 15 cm 处 9.66±6.235.76±3.290.190.88膝下 15 cm 处 9.52±7.575.52±3.170.120.94
1.2.1 吸栓后溶栓组 在血管造影机透视下,行下肢深静脉顺行造影,明确血栓部位及范围、阻塞程度及侧支循环建立情况。随即置入下腔静脉临时滤器(Aegisy滤器,深圳先健科技有限公司,下同)。然后穿刺患肢股静脉在导丝保护下顺行插入10~12 F指引导管(强生公司,下同)至髂静脉血栓处,用50 mL注射器负压抽吸血栓。造影明确主干血栓清除完毕后,经健侧股静脉逆行插溶栓导管(美创公司,下同)至患侧股浅静脉远端,或者经患侧腘静脉顺行插溶栓导管至髂静脉溶解静脉主干内残存血栓和股浅静脉远端血栓;尿激酶用量30~40万 U/次,稀释液 40~60 mL,微量泵匀速注射30~45 min,每日2次,直至造影明确血栓溶解或症状明显缓解。住院期间皮下注射低分子肝素5000 U/12 h,溶栓完毕后服用华法林钠,维持国际化标准比值(INR)于2.0左右[6],持续6~12个月。
1.2.2 单纯溶栓组 经健侧股静脉逆行插溶栓导管至患侧股浅静脉远端,或者经患侧腘静脉顺行插溶栓导管至髂静脉溶解静脉内血栓,尿激酶用量 30~40 万 U/次,稀释液 40~60 mL,微量泵匀速注射30~45 min,每日2次,直至血栓完全溶解或症状明显缓解,但最长溶栓时间一般不超过7 d。住院期间皮下注射低分子量肝素 5000 U/12 h,溶栓结束后改为口服华法林钠抗凝6~12个月,维持国际化标准比值(INR)于2.0左右。若彩超提示下肢静脉近心端存在漂浮血栓块,或既往有肺栓塞病史,或存在胸闷、胸痛、呼吸困难、一过性晕厥等病史诊断为肺栓塞者,先行下腔静脉滤器植入术,再行系统溶栓治疗。若没有上述症状,家属仍担心肺栓塞风险亦同意放置下腔静脉滤器者,也给予下腔静脉滤器置入。
根据参考文献[7]制定急性混合型LEDVT的疗效判定标准。治愈:症状消失,无水肿,双下肢对应部位周径差≤1 cm,造影或彩超证实静脉通畅。显效:症状明显缓解,水肿减退,但周径差1~3 cm,造影或超声显示有血栓残存。无效:症状无减轻,水肿明显,下肢对应部位周径差>3 cm,造影或超声显示静脉闭塞,无血流通过。总有效率等于治愈率加显效率。
患者在术后1、2周及术后1年均进行随访。超过1年患者不予严格随访,嘱根据情况随时门诊复查。随访主要观察患者的疗效,是否出现PTS(包括水肿、下肢色素沉着、下肢静脉溃疡),彩超或造影观察患者静脉主干通畅情况及瓣膜反流情况。
采用t检验,χ2检验及秩和检验,数据用SPSS 13.0软件系统进行统计学处理,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
吸栓后溶栓组60例全部放置下腔静脉滤器,单纯溶栓组有45例置入下腔静脉滤器。所有滤器术后2周内均顺利取出,未有明显滤器置入并发症发生。吸栓后溶栓组有14例滤器拦截到大块血栓,取滤器时用10 F指引导管抽吸血栓,造影明确滤器内无大块血栓后将其取出。单纯溶栓组有3例滤器拦截到大块血栓,同样用上述方法取出。两组均未出现症状性肺栓塞。吸栓后溶栓组患者术中平均失血约为90 mL左右,单纯溶栓组手术过程中失血约为10 mL。两组术前术后血色素比较差异无统计学意义。吸栓后溶栓组术后溶栓过程中未出现大出血、血管夹层或穿孔,术中无死亡;单纯溶栓组溶栓过程中7例出现牙龈出血,调整药物后消失;1例并发脑出血,经抢救无效死亡。
两组最长溶栓时间一般不超过7 d,7 d后症状缓解不明显的则放弃继续溶栓。吸栓后溶栓组住院时间明显短于单纯溶栓组[(6.2±2.2)d vs.(10.5±2.4)d,P<0.05],吸栓后溶栓组尿激酶用量明显少于单纯溶栓组[(170±120)万U vs.(290±100)万U,P<0.05];术后1周复查,吸栓后溶栓组、单纯溶栓组的治愈率和有效率分别为75.00%,45.90%和91.67%,88.52%,治愈率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),有效率差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)(表2)。术后2周复查,吸栓后溶栓组、单纯溶栓组的治愈率和有效率分别为83.33%,62.3%和96.72%,91.81%,治愈率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),有效率差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)(表3)。
表2 两组1周后疗效比较
Table 2 Comparison of the efficacy between the two groups on one week after treatment
组别 尿激酶用量(万U, ±s)有效率(%)治愈[n(%)] 显效[n(%)] 无效[n(%)]吸栓后溶栓组(n=60)170±12091.6745(75.00)10(16.67)5(8.33)单纯溶栓组(n=61)290±10088.5228(45.90)26(42.62)7(11.48)t/χ2 16.4310.8116.3 — —P 0.000.230.00— —
表3 两组2周后疗效比较
Table 3 Comparison of the efficacy between the two groups on two weeks after treatment
组别 住院时间(d, ±s)有效率(%)治愈[n(%)] 显效[n(%)] 无效[n(%)]吸栓后溶栓组(n=60)6.2±2.296.7250(83.33)8(113.33)5(3.34)单纯溶栓组(n=61)10.5±2.491.8138(62.30)26(29.51)7(8.19)t/χ2 14.1410.3210.30 — —P 0.000.310.01— —
出院后吸栓后溶栓组随访60例,随访率为100%。单纯溶栓组随访60例,随访率为98.36%(60/61),两者无统计学差异(P>0.05)。随访时间均为12个月。随访两组的有效率、血管通畅率、下肢肿胀率、后遗症发生率差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)(表4)。
表4 两组中、远期疗效比较
Table 4 Comparison of the mid-and long-term efficacy between the two groups
指标 吸栓后溶栓组(n=60)单纯溶栓组(n=60)t/χ2/Z P后遗症[n(%)]水肿 10(16.67)15(25.00)16.730.21色素沉着 0(0.00)0(0.00)107.600.91溃疡 0(0.00)0(0.00)8.190.86膝下15 cm处周径差(cm, ±s)出院时 0.93±0.521.21±1.5312.120.21随访时 0.53±0.420.78±1.35静脉彩色超声检查[n(%)]通畅无反流 46(76.67)44(73.33)通畅有反流 10(16.67)13(21.67)-5.900.12残余附壁血栓 0(0.00)0(0.00)闭塞 4(6.67)3(5.00)随访疗效评价[n(%)]治愈 52(86.67)48(80.00)显效 7(11.67)10(16.67)-7.360.32无效 1(1.67)2(3.33)
随着介入技术的发展,急性混合型LEDVT的治疗,已经从抗凝和股静脉切开取栓[8-9]发展到置管接触性溶栓及碎栓、机械清除血栓等。混合型LEDVT由于静脉主干被阻塞,回流受阻,肿胀明显,且随着主干静脉阻塞时间的延长,其静脉瓣膜会粘连,遭到破坏,导致后期PTS[10]的发生。所以急性混合型LEDVT的临床治疗首要任务,应彻底清除血栓,促进血管腔再通,避免或减少静脉瓣膜粘连,降低瓣膜功能不全和血栓复发的机率[11]。近年来有文献[12-13]报道将机械清除血栓与导管溶栓技术结合起来治疗LEDVT,取得较好疗效,而经皮大腔导管抽吸术能迅速清除血栓;文献[14]报道血栓清除率为98.2%,笔者采用大腔导管吸栓联合导管溶栓及单纯导管溶栓两种治疗方法,效果都比较满意。
本组研究结果显示,吸栓后再溶栓患者即刻效果显著,短期内就能达到症状明显缓解的目的,而尿激酶用量较单纯溶栓更少,两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。对年老体弱,血压较高且难以控制的患者而言,有着重要意义,能明显减少出血的发生。本研究取栓后溶栓组在2周的治愈率和单纯溶栓组有统计学差异(P<0.05),而有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。吸栓后溶栓组之所以近期疗效显著,短期内即治愈,主要原因为早期即清除主干内大部分血栓,当主干开通、血流恢复后,再辅以溶栓,药物与广泛的侧支小静脉内的血栓直接接触,血栓较容易通过药物而溶解。Oğuzkurt等[15-16]研究表明血栓清除联合置管溶栓,可尽早完全清除血栓,恢复静脉主干通畅,保存和恢复静脉瓣膜,减少溶栓药物用量及缩短置管溶栓时间,所以能明显缩短住院时间,减少费用及并发症。而单纯溶栓组不会短期内彻底溶解血栓,只能溶解一部分血栓,所以治愈率低,但依靠侧支循环的代偿,症状缓解明显,有效率跟抽栓后溶栓组比较无明显的统计学意义(P<0.05)。
研究[15,17]认为,血栓抽吸会损伤静脉瓣膜,术后易发生血栓后综合症。而笔者通过长期的随访发现,取栓后溶栓组的中远期疗效较单纯溶栓组无论在有效率、血管通畅率、后遗症发生率等方面,差异均无统计学意义。本研究显示:吸栓后溶栓组的水肿、色素沉着、溃疡发生率与单纯溶栓组相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。吸栓后溶栓组静脉通畅率(通畅无反流+通畅有反流)为93.33%,瓣膜功能正常率为76.67%,与单纯溶栓组相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访期治疗总有效率,吸栓后溶栓组为98.33%,单纯溶栓组为96.67%,两者相比无明显统计学意义(P>0.05)。长期随访,吸栓后溶栓组与单纯溶栓组治疗总有效率,并发症发生率差异无统计学意义,主要原因为机械性血栓抽吸是在DSA监视下,顺行静脉瓣膜方向抽吸血栓,能迅速恢复主干血流,缓解肢体远端静脉的高压状态,缓解静脉壁水肿及炎症反应,避免静脉壁结构与功能的改变,保存尚未破坏的深静脉瓣膜的结构及其功能[18],因而近期症状缓解明显,中远期血栓后综合症发病率低。而单纯溶栓组血栓处于急性期,血栓易溶解,大剂量尿激酶溶解静脉主干内血栓,静脉瓣膜得到保护,再加上侧支循环代偿较好,故短期内治愈率低而有效率高。而从长期看,持续抗凝治疗,静脉内血栓慢慢自溶,故长期随访的治愈率和并发症发生率,与抽栓后溶栓比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
对于术前是否置入滤器,尚有争议。ACCP指南中提出下腔静脉滤器可以预防和减少PE的发生,对于急性LEDVT拟行导管溶栓或手术取栓等血栓清除术者可以考虑置入下腔静脉滤器[19]。笔者认为置入滤器应尽量以临时性滤器为主,血栓稳定后尽快将滤器取出。本组所有滤器均顺利取出,未见明显滤器置入并发症的发生。
不管是取栓后溶栓还是单纯溶栓患者,均有一定的无效率,文献[20]报道在髂、股静脉血栓形成的患者中,特别是左侧肢体,80%髂静脉近端存在一个生理性狭窄,这是治疗无效的关键因素。这种生理性狭窄,目前大多数专家学者建议行支架植入术治疗。但目前尚无专属的静脉支架应用于临床,且缺乏足够的询证医学证据,需要进一步研究。
综上,对急性混合型LEDVT的治疗而言,取栓后溶栓比单纯溶栓能提高治愈率、减少溶栓药物使用量、缩短住院时间。但两种治疗方法中远期疗效不相上下。
[1] Lucena J,Rico A,Vázquez R,et al.Pulmonary embolism and sudden-unexpected death:prospective study on 2477 forensic autopsies performed at the Institute of Legal Medicine in Seville[J].J Forensic Leg Med,2009,16(4):196-201.doi:10.1016/j.j flm.2008.08.015.
[2] Baglin T.What happens after venous thromboembolism?[J].J Thromb Haemost,2009,7(Suppl 1):287-290.doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2009.03409.x.
[3] 孙毅,孙国华,王胜甲,等.下肢深静脉血栓形成后遗症的外科手术治疗[J].中国普通外科杂志,2002,11(7):402-404.Sun Y,Sun GH,Wang SJ,et al.Surgical treatment of the sequel of deep vein thrombosis of lower extremi[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2002,11(7):402-404.
[4] 蔡林刚,任为.下肢深静脉血栓形成后综合征治疗的进展[J].中国普通外科杂志,2008,17(6):599-601.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-6947.2008.06.019.Cai LG,Ren W.Advances in the treatment of post-thromboemblic syndrome of deep venous of lower extremities[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2008,17(6):599-601.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1005-6947.2008.06.019.
[5] 张青云,高建国,陈泳,等.综合介入治疗在38例下肢深静脉血栓形成中的临床分析[J].重庆医学,2011,40(8):816-818.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2011.08.036.Zhang QY,Gao JG,Chen Y,et al.Clinical analysis of integrated intentional therapy for 38 cases with deep venous thrombosis of the lower limbs[J].Chongqing Medicine,2011,40(8):816-818.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2011.08.036.
[6] 万圣云,徐周纬,丁洋,等.下肢深静脉血栓形成的综合治疗[J].中国普通外科杂志,2009,18(12):1255-1258.Wan SY,Xu ZW,Ding Y,et al.The combined therapy of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2009,18(12):1255-1258.
[7] 庄金满,赵军.下肢深静脉血栓手术取栓与介入取栓疗效的比较研究[J].中国微创外科杂志,2010,10(12):1075-1078.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2010.12.008.Zhuang JM,Zhao J.Comparison of Surgical Thrombectomy with Interventional Thrombectomy for Deep Vein Thrombosis of the Lower Extremity[J].Chinese Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery,2010,10(12):1075-1078.doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2010.12.008.
[8] 崔明哲.两种不同途径溶栓治疗下肢深静脉血栓的疗效比较[J].中国普通外科杂志,2010,19(6):659-661.Cui MZ.Comparison of with two different routes of thrombolytic therapy for deep venous thrombosis[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2010,19(6):659-661.
[9] 罗定远,黎洪浩,龙淼云,等.手术取栓与药物溶栓治疗急性髂股型下肢深静脉血栓形成的疗效比较[J].中华普通外科杂志,2010,25(11):876-879.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2010.11.006.Luo DY,Li HH,Long MY,et al.Thrombectomy and pharmacological thrombolysis for acute iliofemoral lower extremity deep venous thrombosis[J].Zhong Hua Pu Tong Wai Ke Za Zhi,2010,25(11):876-879.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2010.11.006.
[10] Delis KT,Bountouroglou D,Mans field AO.Venous claudication in iliofemoral thrombosis:long-term effects on venous hemodynamics,clinical status,and quality of life[J].Ann Surg,2004,239(1):118-126.doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000103067.10695.74.
[11] 李晓强,段鹏飞,钱爱民,等.介入联合手术治疗急性下肢深静脉血栓形成[J].中华普通外科杂志,2006,21(9):660-661.doi:10.3760/j.issn:1007-631X.2006.09.015.Li XQ,Duan PF,Qian AM,et al.Interventional and surgical therapy for acute deep vein thrombosis of the lower extremity[J].Zhong Hua Pu Tong Wai Ke Za Zhi,2006,21(9):660-661.doi:10.3760/j.issn:1007-631X.2006.09.015.
[12] Vedantham S,Vesely TM,Parti N,et al.Lower extremity venous thrombolysis with adjunctive mechanical thrombectomy[J].J Vasc Interv Radiol,2002,13(10):1001-1008.
[13] Frisoli JK,Sze D.Mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis[J].Tech Vasc Interv Radiol,2003,6(1):49-52.doi:10.1053/tvir.2003.36439.
[14] 张希全,王义平,朱伟,等.微创治疗髂静脉闭塞合并下肢深静脉血栓形成[J].中国介入影像与治疗学,2012,9(12):843-846.Zhang XQ,Wang YP,Zhu W,et al.Minimally invasive treatment of common iliac vein occlusion combined with lower extremity deep venous thrombosis[J].Chinese Journal of Interventional Imaging and Therapy,2012,9(12):843-846.
[15] Oğuzkurt L,Ozkan U,Gülcan O,et a1.Endovascular treatment of acute and subacute iliofemoral deep venous thrombosis by using manual aspiration thrombectomy:long-term results of 139 patients in a single center[J] Diagn Interv Radiol,2012,18(4):410-416.doi:10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.5175-11.1.
[16] Kwak HS,Han YM,Lee YS,et al.Stents in common iliac vein obstruction with acute ipsilateral deep venous thrombosis:early and late results[J].J Vasc Interv Radiol,2005,16(6):815-822.doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000157690.91690.38.
[17] Park SI,Lee M,Lee MS,et al.Single-session aspiration thrombectomy of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis using largesize catheter without pharmacologic thrombolysis [J].Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol,2014,37(2):412-419.doi:10.1007/s00270-013-0676-1.
[18] 谷涌泉,张建,齐立行,等.急性重症下肢深静脉血栓形成的外科治疗[J].中华医学杂志,2009,89(45):3186-3188.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2009.45.006.Gu YQ,Zhang J,Qi LX,et al.Treatment of severe acute deep venous thrombosis in lower extremity[J].National Medical Journal of China,2009,89(45):3186-3188.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2009.45.006.
[19] 中华医学会外科学分会血管外科学组.深静脉血栓形成的诊断和治疗指南(第二版)[J].中华普通外科杂志,2012,27(7):605-607.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2012.07.033.Vascular Surgery Group of Surgery Society of Chinese medical Association.Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of deep venous thrombosis(the Second Edition)[J].Zhong Hua Pu Tong Wai Ke Za Zhi,2012,27(7):605-607.doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-631X.2012.07.033.
[20] Vedantham S,Thorpe PE,Cardella JF,et al.Quality improvement guidelines for the treatment of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis with use of endovascular thrombus removal[J].J Vasc Interv Radiol,2009,20(7 Suppl):S227-239.doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2009.04.016.
Efficacy comparison of thrombus aspiration plus catheter directed thrombolysis and catheter thrombolysis alone for acute mixed deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities
Methods:The clinical data of 121 patients with acute mixed LEDVT treated during June 2012 to June 2017 were retrospectively analyzed.Of the patients,60 cases underwent CDT after thrombus aspiration(thrombus aspiration plus CDT group)and 61 cases underwent direct CDT(CDT alone group).Th e main clinical variables between the two groups of patients were compared.
Results:The general preoperative data showed no signi ficant differences between the two groups(all P>0.05).In thrombus aspiration plus CDT group compared with CDT alone group,the average length of hospital stay(6.2 d vs. 10.5 d,P<0.05)and average amount of urokinase used(17×104 U vs. 290×104 U,P<0.05)were signi ficantly reduced.In thrombus aspiration plus CDT group and CDT alone group,the cure rate and effective rate in thrombus aspiration plus CDT group on one week after treatment were 75% and 91.67% and on two weeks after treatment were 83.33% and 96.72%,and in CDT alone group on one week after treatment were 45.9%and 91.67% and on two weeks after treatment were 62.3% and 96.72%,respectively.The cure rates in thrombus aspiration plus CDT group were significantly higher than those in CDT alone group(both P<0.05),but the effective rates showed no signi ficant differences between the two groups(both P>0.05).Follow-up was conducted at 12 months after operation,the incidence of complications,the decreasing amplitudes in differences in the circumferences at 15 cm below the knee between healthy and affected limb,the vein patency rates and normal venous valve function rates as well as the overall effective rates showed no signi ficant differences between the two groups(all P>0.05).
Conclusion: Compared with CDT alone,thrombus aspiration plus CDT can obviously decrease the length of hospitalization,decrease the dose of urokinase infusion and increase the cure rate for acute mixed LEDVT,while its mid- and long-term efficacy shows no obvious superiority.
Cite this article as: Li CH,Liu X.Efficacy comparison of thrombus aspiration plus catheter directed thrombolysis and catheter thrombolysis alone for acute mixed deep venous thrombosis of lower extremities[J].Chin J Gen Surg,2018,27(12):1525-1530.doi:10.7659/j.issn.1005-6947.2018.12.005