American Society of Hirudotherapy

AngioJet Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Research article published in Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis (2021)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Meta-analysisClinical TrialsDrug DevelopmentLi GQ et al. · Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 2021

Abstract

Early catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT) can reduce post-thrombotic morbidity and the AngioJet thrombectomy is a new therapy that can be selected for the treatment of LEDVT. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing AngioJet versus CDT to assess the efficacy and safety of AngioJet thrombectomy. We systematically searched PubMed and Embase for clinical trials that published before November 1, 2020 and compared AngioJet thrombectomy and CDT in the treatment of LEDVT. We meta-analyzed effective rate of treatment, serious complications, PTS, Villalta score, duration of treatment and drug dose. AngioJet does not result in a significant difference in the effective rate (OR 1.00, CI 0.73-1.36, P = 0.98; I2 = 0%) and complications (OR 1.16 CI 0.84-1.61, P = 0.36; I2 = 39%) compare to CDT. And there was a statistically significant decrease in incidence of PTS (OR 0.58 CI 0.37-0.91, P = 0.02; I2 = 0%) and Villalta score (OR -1.86 CI -3.49 to -0.24, P = 0.02; I2 = 34%) for AngioJet compared to CDT. In addition, there was a statistically significant decrease in duration of the treatment (OR -2.45 CI -2.75 to -2.15, P < 0.0001; I2 = 95%) and drug dose (OR -3.15 CI -3.38 to -2.93, P < 0.0001; I2 = 98%) between AngioJet and CDT. AngioJet results in a low severity of PTS compared to CDT therapy. Moreover, the average duration of treatment and thrombolysis time was shorter in the AngioJet group compared to the CDT group. However, the AngioJet group was not significantly different in effective rate of treatment and serious complications compared to the CDT group.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleMeta-Analysis
Indexed MeSH termsFemaleHumansLower ExtremityMaleRisk FactorsThrombectomyThrombolytic TherapyTreatment OutcomeVenous Thrombosis

Summary

Early catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (LEDVT) can reduce post-thrombotic morbidity and the AngioJet thrombectomy is a new therapy that can be selected for the treatment of LEDVT.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

Informs the thrombolytic and fibrinolytic context against which leech-derived anticoagulant and clot-modulating compounds are evaluated.

Citation

AngioJet Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Lower Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

Li GQ et al. · Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis, 2021

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.