Key result
CLEANER Vac thrombectomy achieves ~88% mean thrombus clearance with low complication rates.
Why the study?
Conventional anticoagulation and thrombolytic therapies for VTE often result in suboptimal thrombus resolution, necessitating evaluation of mechanical thrombectomy devices like the CLEANER Vac system.
Cohort (n=200)
Yes
The CLEANER Vac thrombectomy system demonstrates high procedural efficacy and safety for rapid thrombus clearance in patients with acute or subacute VTE.
Supports CLEANER Vac for acute VTE thrombectomy; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation of outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), encompassing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), represents a significant clinical entity with elevated morbidity and mortality rates. Conventional therapeutic approaches, such as systemic anticoagulation and thrombolytic agents, frequently yield suboptimal thrombus resolution. Mechanical thrombectomy has introduced a paradigm shift, enabling expeditious thrombus extraction while mitigating the chronic outcomes of sub optimally treated VTE and sequelae inherent to fibrinolytic therapies. The CLEANER Vac™ Thrombectomy System (Argon Medical Devices) is designed for controlled percutaneous venous thrombectomy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world procedural efficacy, safety profile, and clinical utility of the CLEANER Vac system in a multicenter cohort comprising 200 patients presenting with symptomatic venous thrombus. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter investigation included data from 200 patients who underwent intervention between October 2024 and January 2026 across 26 U.S. institutions. Eligible participants were adults aged ≥18 years with imaging-confirmed acute (<14 days) or subacute (14-28 days) VTE. Primary endpoints included thrombus clearance efficacy, segmented venous involvement, estimated blood loss (EBL), and intraprocedural adverse event incidence. RESULTS: The study cohort had a mean age of 64.5 years (range 25-90 years), with a gender distribution of 52% female (n=104) and 48% male (n=96). An average of 2.2 venous segments were treated per patient (range 1-5). Mean pre-procedure clot burden was 88.0%, which decreased to 10.5% post-procedure, culminating in a mean thrombus clearance of 88.0%. Overall, 76.0% of patients (n=152) achieved ≥90% clot resolution. Adjunctive rotational maceration was employed in 30% of cases, balloon venoplasty in 38%, and stent placement in 15%. Mean device utilization time was 8.0 minutes, with an average of 2.4 device passes per patient. Mean EBL was 320 mL (range 50-750 mL). The overall complication rate was 2.4% (n=5), consisting exclusively of minor access-site hematomas not attributed to the device. No serious adverse events (SAEs) were device-attributable within the 200-patient cohort. Procedures were predominantly classified as peripheral venous interventions (70%), with the remaining 30% encompassing alternative indications (e.g., in-stent restenosis, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt revisions). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of 200 patients, the CLEANER Vac system demonstrated high procedural efficacy (88.0% mean clot clearance, 76% achieving ≥90% resolution) and a favorable overall safety profile. The findings support the potential role of this system in enabling rapid, single-session VTE treatment with constrained hemorrhagic liability and morbidity compared to CDT. Prospective, longitudinal studies are warranted to evaluate long-term outcomes and delineate optimal patient stratification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sayfo et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Venous thromboembolism (VTE) (n=200). CLEANER Vac Thrombectomy System was evaluated on Thrombus clearance efficacy, segmented venous involvement, estimated blood loss (EBL), and intraprocedural adverse event incidence. The CLEANER Vac system achieved a mean thrombus clearance of 88.0%, with 76.0% of patients achieving ≥90% clot resolution and a 2.4% minor complication rate.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: