Abstract: Seventeen RCTs with 1103 participants were included. These studies differed in the both thrombolytic agent used and in the technique used to deliver it. Systemic, loco-regional and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) were all included. Fourteen studies were rated as low risk of bias and three studies were rated as high risk of bias. We combined the results as any (all) thrombolysis compared to standard anticoagulation. Complete clot lysis occurred significantly more often in the treatment group at early follow-up (RR 4.91; 95% CI 1.66 to 14.53, P = 0.004) and at intermediate follow-up (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.40 to 4.27, P = 0.002; moderate quality evidence). A similar effect was seen for any degree of improvement in venous patency. Up to five years after treatment significantly less PTS occurred in those receiving thrombolysis (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). This reduction in PTS was still observed at late follow-up (beyond five years), in two studies (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). Leg ulceration was reduced although the data were limited by small numbers (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 4.73, P = 0.87). Those receiving thrombolysis had increased bleeding complications (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.52, P = 0.0006; moderate quality evidence). Three strokes occurred in the treatment group, all in trials conducted pre-1990, and none in the control group. There was no significant effect on mortality detected at either early or intermediate follow-up. Data on the occurrence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and recurrent DVT were inconclusive. Systemic thrombolysis and CDT had similar levels of effectiveness. Studies of CDT included two trials in femoral and iliofemoral DVT, and results from these are consistent with those from trials of systemic thrombolysis in DVT at other levels of occlusion. Thrombolysis increases the patency of veins and reduces the incidence of PTS following proximal DVT by a third. Evidence suggests that systemic administration and CDT have similar effectiveness. Strict eligibility criteria appears to improve safety in recent studies and may be necessary to reduce the risk of bleeding complications. This may limit the applicability of this treatment. In those who are treated there is a small increased risk of bleeding. Using GRADE assessment, the evidence was judged to be of moderate quality due to many trials having low numbers of participants. However, the results across studies were consistent and we have reasonable confidence in these results.

Plain-language summary: The review results are based on 17 controlled trials that randomised a total of 1103 people with acute DVT (within 21 days of onset of symptoms) to receive thrombolysis or anticoagulant treatment. Trials were carried out principally in the USA, Scandinavia, Germany and the UK. All trials included men and women ranging in age from 18 to 75 years with a preponderance of older adults. The present review (current until February 2016) showed that thrombolysis may have advantages over standard anticoagulation treatment. Thrombolysis effectively dissolved the clot so that complete clot breakdown occurred more often with thrombolysis than with standard anticoagulant therapy. Blood flow in the affected vein (venous patency) was also better maintained. Three trials (306 participants) continued for over six months and found that fewer people developed PTS when treated with thrombolysis, 45% compared with 66% in the standard anticoagulation treatment group. Two trials (211 participants) which continued for over five years also showed that fewer people developed PTS when treated with thrombolysis. Those receiving thrombolysis had more bleeding complications than with standard anticoagulation (10% versus 8%). Most bleeding episodes and deaths occurred in the older studies. Use of strict eligibility criteria appears to have improved the safety of this treatment, which is effective delivered directly to the clot by catheter or via bloodstream from another vein. Qualitity of the evidence Using GRADE assessment, the evidence was judged to be of moderate quality due to many trials having low numbers of participants. However, the results across studies were consistent and we have reasonable confidence in these results.