Systematic Review: The Role of Thrombolysis in Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis versus Pulmonary Artery Embolectomy in Pulmonary Embolism: A National Population-Based Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term follow-up outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) with those of pulmonary artery embolectomy (PAE) for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) included in a nationwide cohort.

BACKGROUND

Data allowing direct comparisons between CDT and PAE are lacking in the literature, and the optimal management of high-risk and intermediate-risk PE is still debated.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted with data for 2001 through 2013 collected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Patients who were first admitted for PE and treated with either CDT or PAE were included and compared. In-hospital outcomes included in-hospital death and safety (bleeding and cardiac arrhythmias) outcomes. Follow-up outcomes included all-cause mortality and recurrent PE during the 1- and 2-year follow-up periods and through the last follow-up. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on the propensity score was used to minimize possible selection bias, including indices for multimorbidity such as the Charlson's Comorbidity Index (CCI) and HAS-BLED scores.

RESULTS

A total of 389 patients treated between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013, were identified; 169 underwent CDT and 220 underwent PAE. After IPTW, there were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (18.2% vs 21.3%; odds ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-1.62) or the incidence of safety outcomes between the CDT and PAE groups. The risks of all-cause mortality (30% vs 29.5%; hazard ratio 1.16, 95% CI: 0.89-1.53), recurrent PE (7.2% vs 8.7%; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.68, 95% CI: 0.39-1.21) and new-onset pulmonary hypertension (SHR 0.25, 95% CI: 0.05-1.32) were also not significantly different between the CDT and PAE groups at 2 years of follow-up. Subgroup analysis indicated that PAE may be associated with a more favorable 2-year mortality in patients <65 years old, patients with CCI scores of <3, patients with HAS-BLED scores of 1 to 2, and patients without cardiogenic shock (all P for interaction <.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PE who required reperfusion therapy, CDT and PAE resulted in similar in-hospital and long-term all-cause mortality rates and long-term rates of recurrent PE. Bleeding risks were also comparable in the 2 groups.

Ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis versus systemic anticoagulation alone for submassive pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in the United States. Catheter-directed, ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) uses high-frequency, low-energy ultrasound waves to disaggregate uncrosslinked fibrin fibers and increase thrombus penetration of a locally delivered thrombolytic to treat an acute PE. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of catheter-directed USAT versus systemic anticoagulation alone in submassive PE. This was a single-center, retrospective study of patients with a diagnosis of acute submassive PE from April 4, 2014 to May 1, 2019 at a large, academic medical center. Subjects were split into two different groups based on treatment with either USAT with systemic anticoagulation or systemic anticoagulation alone. The primary outcome was the incidence of severe or life-threatening GUSTO bleeding within 72 h or until hospital discharge if sooner. A total of 130 subjects were included (n = 40 in the USAT group and n = 90 in systemic anticoagulation alone group). Significantly fewer subjects in the USAT group had an active diagnosis of cancer at the time of presentation (7.5% vs 28.9%, p = 0.006). There was no difference in severe or life-threatening GUSTO bleeding or any component of the GUSTO bleeding definitions. Administration of USAT with systemic anticoagulation was well-tolerated when compared to systemic anticoagulation alone, but bias may have led to selection of patients for USAT with a lower bleeding risk and higher functional status at baseline.