Time course of platelet aggregation during thrombolytic treatment of massive pulmonary embolism

Neurological Complications of Pulmonary Embolism: a Literature Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review discusses in-depth about neurological complications following acute venous thromboembolism (VTE).

RECENT FINDINGS

Intracranial hemorrhage, acute ischemic cerebrovascular events, and VTE in brain tumors are described as central nervous system (CNS) complications of PE, while peripheral neuropathy and neuropathic pain are reported as peripheral nervous system (PNS) sequelae of PE. Syncope and seizure are illustrated as atypical neurological presentations of PE. Mounting evidence suggests higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with neurological diseases, but data on reverse, i.e., neurological sequelae following VTE, is underexplored. The present review is an attempt to explore some of the latter issues categorized into CNS, PNS, and atypical complications following VTE.

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Thrombolytic therapy is usually reserved for people with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and may reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhage. This is the fourth update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 17 August 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy followed by heparin versus heparin alone, heparin plus placebo, or surgical intervention for people with acute PE (massive/submassive). We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (ZZ, QH) assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of trials and extracted data. We calculated effect estimates using the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) or the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI. The primary outcomes of interest were death, recurrence of PE and haemorrhagic events. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three new studies for inclusion in this update. We included 21 trials in the review, with a total of 2401 participants. No studies compared thrombolytics versus surgical intervention. We were not able to include one study in the meta-analysis because it provided no extractable data. Most studies carried a high or unclear risk of bias related to randomisation and blinding. Meta-analysis showed that, compared to control (heparin alone or heparin plus placebo), thrombolytics plus heparin probably reduce both the odds of death (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.88; 19 studies, 2319 participants; low-certainty evidence), and recurrence of PE (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91; 12 studies, 2050 participants; low-certainty evidence). Effects on mortality weakened when six studies at high risk of bias were excluded from analysis (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13; 13 studies, 2046 participants) and in the analysis of submassive PE participants (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.02; 1993 participants). Effects on recurrence of PE also weakened after removing one study at high risk of bias for sensitivity analysis (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.04; 11 studies, 1949 participants). We downgraded the certainty of evidence to low because of 'Risk of bias' concerns. Major haemorrhagic events were probably more common in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.92 to 4.20; 15 studies, 2101 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), as were minor haemorrhagic events (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.66 to 5.30; 13 studies,1757 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate or low because of 'Risk of bias' concerns and inconsistency. Haemorrhagic stroke may occur more often in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 7.59, 95% CI 1.38 to 41.72; 2 studies, 1091 participants). Limited data indicated that thrombolytics may benefit haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment, echocardiograms, pulmonary hypertension, coagulation parameters, composite clinical outcomes, need for escalation and survival time to a greater extent than heparin alone. However, the heterogeneity of the studies and the small number of participants involved warrant caution when interpreting results. The length of hospital stay was shorter in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (mean difference (MD) -1.40 days, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.11; 5 studies, 368 participants). Haemodynamic decompensation may occur less in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.66; 3 studies, 1157 participants). Quality of life was similar between the two treatment groups. None of the included studies provided data on post-thrombotic syndrome or on cost comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that thrombolytics may reduce death following acute pulmonary embolism compared with heparin (the effectiveness was mainly driven by one trial with massive PE). Thrombolytic therapy may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of pulmonary emboli but may cause more major and minor haemorrhagic events, including haemorrhagic stroke. More studies of high methodological quality are needed to assess safety and cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy for people with pulmonary embolism.

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Thrombolytic therapy is usually reserved for patients with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and may reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhage. This is the third update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 16 April 2018. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy followed by heparin versus heparin alone, heparin plus placebo, or surgical intervention for patients with acute PE. We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JY, QH) assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data. We calculated effect estimates using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies for inclusion in this 2018 update. We included in the review 18 trials with a total of 2197 participants. We were not able to include one study in the meta-analysis because it provided no data that we could extract. Most of the studies carried a high risk of bias because of high or unclear risk related to randomisation and blinding. Meta-analysis showed that, compared with heparin alone, or heparin plus placebo, thrombolytics plus heparin can reduce the odds of death (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.87, 2167 participants, P = 0.01, low-quality evidence) and recurrence of PE (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, 1898 participants, P = 0.02, low-quality evidence). Effects on mortality weakened when we excluded from analysis four studies at high risk of bias (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, 2054 participants, P = 0.08). The incidence of major and minor haemorrhagic events was higher in the thrombolytics group than in the control group (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.95 to 4.31, 1897 participants, P < 0.001, low-quality evidence; OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06, 1553 participants, P = 0.001, very low-quality evidence, respectively). We downgraded the quality of the evidence to low or very low because of design limitations, potential influence of pharmaceutical companies, and small sample sizes. Length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -0.89, 95% CI -3.13 to 1.34) and quality of life were similar between the two treatment groups. Limited information from a small number of trials indicated that thrombolytics may improve haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment, echocardiograms, pulmonary hypertension, coagulation parameters, clinical outcomes, and survival time to a greater extent than heparin alone. However, the heterogeneity of the studies and the small number of participants involved warrant caution when results are interpreted. Similarily, fewer participants from the thrombolytics group required escalation of treatment. None of the included studies reported on post-thrombotic syndrome or compared the costs of different treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that thrombolytics reduce death following acute pulmonary embolism compared with heparin. The included studies used a variety of thrombolytic drugs. Thrombolytic therapy may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of pulmonary emboli but may cause major and minor haemorrhagic events and stroke. More high-quality, blinded randomised controlled trials assessing safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies for pulmonary embolism are required.

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Thrombolytic therapy (powerful anticoagulation drugs) is usually reserved for patients with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhages. This is the second update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched September 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 8, 2014). We also searched individual trial collections and private databases, along with bibliographies of relevant articles. We handsearched relevant medical journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy followed by heparin versus heparin alone, heparin plus placebo or surgical intervention in patients with acute PE. We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (BD and QH) assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 18 trials with a total of 2197 participants for inclusion in the review. We were not able to include one study in the meta-analysis because it had no data to extract. Most of the studies carried a high risk of bias because of high or unclear risk relating to randomisation and blinding. Meta-analysis showed that, compared with heparin alone, or heparin plus placebo, thrombolytics plus heparin can reduce the odds of death (odds ratio (OR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.87, P = 0.02, low quality evidence) and recurrence of PE (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, P = 0.02, low quality evidence). The effects of death weakened when we excluded four studies at high risk of bias from analysis: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06, P = 0.08. The incidence of major and minor haemorrhagic events was higher in the thrombolytics group than in the control group, and this difference was statistically significant (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.95 to 4.31, P < 0.001, low quality evidence; OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06, P = 0.001, very low quality evidence, respectively). Length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -1.35, 95% CI -4.27 to 1.58) and quality of life were similar between the two treatment groups. Stroke was reported in one study and occurred more often in the thrombolytics group than in the control group, although the confidence interval was wide (OR 12.10, 95% CI 1.57 to 93.39). Limited information from a small number of trials indicated that thrombolytics may improve haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment, echocardiograms, pulmonary hypertension, coagulation parameters, clinical outcomes and survival time to a greater extent than heparin alone. However, the heterogeneity of the studies and small number of participants involved warrant caution when interpreting results. Similarily, fewer patients from the thrombolytics group required escalation of treatment. None of the included studies reported on post-thrombotic syndrome or compared the cost of the different treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence that thrombolytics reduce death following acute pulmonary embolism compared with heparin. Furthermore, thrombolytic therapies included in the review were heterogeneous. Thrombolytic therapy may be helpful in reducing the recurrence of pulmonary emboli but may cause more major and minor haemorrhagic events and stroke. More high quality double blind RCTs assessing safety and cost-effectiveness are required.

Bleeding risk with systemic thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism: scope of the problem

Acute pulmonary embolism represents a major complication of venous thromboembolism that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend the rapid initiation of anticoagulation and consideration of thrombolytic therapy in select patients, including those with hypotension or at high risk of developing hypotension. Evaluation for thrombolytic therapy should only be considered after assessment of contraindications and risk for major bleeding. The objective of this perspective article is to evaluate the bleeding risk associated with systemic thrombolytic therapy in the management of acute pulmonary embolism and discuss strategies to minimize this risk. Risk stratification of acute pulmonary embolism will be discussed to identify patient populations that warrant specific consideration of risk for major bleeding with thrombolytic therapy. In addition, the incidence, patient-specific risk factors, and pharmacologic characteristics, including concurrent anticoagulation and thrombolytic therapy, will be evaluated in the context of risk for major hemorrhage. Finally, supporting evidence for strategies to minimize risk of hemorrhage, including evaluation of contraindications, weight adjusted dosing, infusion strategy and catheter-directed thrombolytic administration will be evaluated. Despite published guidelines and review articles, select aspects to thrombolytic therapy for the management of pulmonary embolism remain controversial and under recognized, including risk of major hemorrhage. When making decisions about the role of thrombolytic therapy in pulmonary embolism, clinicians must be knowledgeable about the associated risks of thrombolytic therapy and individually evaluate patient risk factors prior to determining appropriate candidacy for thrombolytic therapy. For patients considered to be at high risk of major bleeding, strategies to minimize risk should be considered, including weight-adjusted doses and catheter directed therapy. Additional research is needed specific to the acute pulmonary embolism setting to validate risk factors and strategies to minimize major hemorrhage.

The effect of Na-selenite treatment on the oxidative stress-antioxidants balance of multiple organ failure

PURPOSE

Our study tested the hypothesis that sodium (Na)-selenite expression treatment can reduce oxidative stress and increase plasma antioxidants, whereas modulating white blood cell antigen expression in severe sepsis. Selenite is a well known cofactor of glutathione peroxidases and other antioxidant enzymes; therefore, one may expect an antioxidant effect of treatment.

MATERIALS

We randomized 40 severe septic patients into treatment and control groups. Treatment group (n = 21) received 1000-μg/2 hours Na-selenite load, followed by a 1000-μg/die medication. Oxidative stress markers, including malondialdehyde, maximal free radical production, and plasma antioxidants: free sulfhydryl groups, glutathione levels, and superoxide dismutase and catalase enzyme activity were measured.

RESULTS

According to our results, the treatment regime successfully restored serum selenium levels. Treatment group developed a significant malondialdehyde increase by the fifth study day, whereas reactive oxygen species production decreased significantly. Reduced glutathione and plasma sulfhydryl groups showed no significant difference. Treatment group showed deteriorated expression of CD11a and slight increase of CD49d expression on monocytes throughout our study.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our Na-selenite treatment regime successfully restored the selenium deficiency of severe septic patients, antioxidant and white blood cell antigen expression modulating effect of the therapy was not observed in our patient group.

Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of thrombolytic therapy for the initial treatment of hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism remains controversial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing between administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) and heparin in hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism. Seven trials, involving 594 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with heparin, rt-PA was associated with a non-significant reduction in death (2.75% versus 3.96%; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31-1.52, P for heterogeneity=0.520) and recurrent pulmonary embolism (2.13% versus 3.34%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.28-1.73), and a non-significant increase in major bleeding (5.15% versus 4.29%; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.520-2.150). Similar results were found based on a subgroup analysis of patients displaying echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD). In contrast, rt-PA treatment was associated with a significant reduction in escalation of care in trials that also enrolled patients displaying RVD compared with heparin treatment (6.56% versus 19.7%; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.65).

CONCLUSION

The currently available data provide no evidence for a benefit of administration of rt-PA compared with heparin for the initial treatment of hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism. However, rt-PA is partially beneficial specifically among patients displaying RVD.

Accuracy of D-dimer:fibrinogen ratio to diagnose pulmonary thromboembolism in patients admitted to intensive care units

Introduction

Pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) may increase D-dimer and decrease fibrinogen levels. However, in settings such as intensive care units (ICU) and in long-term hospitalised patients, several factors may influence D-dimer and fibrinogen concentrations and make them unreliable indicators for the diagnosis of PTE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of D-dimer:fibrinogen ratio (DDFR) for the diagnosis of PTE in ICU patients.

Methods

ICU patients who were suspected of having a first PTE and had no history of using anti-coagulants and contraceptives were included in the study. Levels of D-dimer and fibrinogen were measured for each patient prior to any intervention. Angiography or CT angiography was done in order to establish a definite diagnosis for each patient. Suitable analytical tests were performed to compare means.

Results

Eighty-one patients were included in the study, of whom 41 had PTE and 40 did not. Mean values of D-dimer and fibrinogen were 3.97 ± 3.22 μg/ml and 560.6 ± 197.3 mg/dl, respectively. Significantly higher levels of D-dimer (4.65 ± 3.46 vs 2.25 ± 2.55 μg/ml, p = 0.006) and DDFR (0.913 ± 0.716 vs 483 ± 0.440 × 10^-3, p = 0.003) were seen in PTE patients than in those without PTE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed a 70.3% sensitivity and 70.1% specificity with a D-dimer value of 2.43 μg/ml (AUC = 0.714, p = 0.002) as the best cut-off point; and a 70.3% sensitivity and 61.6% specificity with a DDFR value of 0.417 × 10^-3 (AUC = 0.710, p = 0.004) as the best cut-off point. In backward stepwise regression analysis, DDRF (OR = 0.72, p = 0.025), gender (OR = 0.76, p = 0.049) and white blood cell count (OR = 1.11, p = 0.373) were modelled (p = 0.029, R² = 0.577).

Conclusion

For diagnosis of PTE, DDFR can be considered to have almost the same importance as D-dimer level. Moreover, it was possible to rule out PTE with only a D-dimer cut-off value < 0.43 mg/dl, without the use of DDFR. However, these values cannot be used as a replacement for angiography or CT angiography

Case study and review: treatment of tricuspid prosthetic valve thrombosis

Prosthetic valve thrombosis (PVT) is a severe and life-threatening complication of heart valve replacement. Conventional therapy is surgical thrombectomy or valve replacement. Medical thrombolysis is another emerging option. We report the case of a 57 year old woman with a history of Ebstein anomaly who underwent successful treatment of tricuspid prosthetic valve thrombosis with intra-atrial infusion of very low dose recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). We review the presentation, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of tricuspid PVT emphasizing a modified medical option as a safe, minimally invasive alternative to surgical intervention or conventional medical therapy for tricuspid valve thrombosis.

Platelet aggregation in severe sepsis

Severe sepsis and multiple organ distress syndrome remain a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for intensive therapy. Platelet activating factor forms a bridge between inflammation and clot formation. Our study surveys the effect of severe sepsis on platelet function and focuses on spontaneous aggregation in severely ill patients. Daily arterial blood samples were collected from 45 patients (average age of 60.7 ± 13) for five consecutive days following admission and 30 healthy controls. Platelet aggregation was measured using adrenaline (ADR), adenosine diphosphate (ADP), collagen (COL) and normal saline (SAL). Clinical status was observed using Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score systems. Inducible aggregation deteriorated in septic patients in all 5 days with ADR, ADP and COL (P < 0.05) while SAL aggregation was increased during intensive care. Low platelet patients showed weak inducible aggregation with ADP throughout, with ADR on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th days and with COL on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd days. SAL aggregation showed no significance. No significant difference was seen between platelet functions comparing survivors and non-survivors. In the spontaneous aggregative group, platelet count was insignificantly higher, while procalcitonin levels were lower in 1st, 3rd and 4th days and no significant difference was observed in lactate levels. We demonstrated the presence of spontaneous platelet activity while overall inducible platelet aggregation is significantly deteriorated in septic patients. There were significant differences in inducible aggregation between normal and low platelet count groups. Inducible platelet function had no predictive value in the outcome.

Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Thrombolytic therapy is usually reserved for patients with clinically serious or massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Evidence suggests that thrombolytic agents may dissolve blood clots more rapidly than heparin and might reduce the death rate associated with PE. However, there are still concerns about the possible risk of adverse effects of thrombolytic therapy, such as major or minor haemorrhages. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute PE.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Review Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched April 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 2, 2009). We also searched individual trial collections and private databases, along with bibliographies of relevant articles. Relevant medical journals were handsearched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared thrombolytic therapy with placebo or heparin or surgical intervention in patients with acute PE. We did not include trials comparing two different thrombolytic agents or different doses of the same thrombolytic drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (DB and WQ) assessed the eligibility and quality of trials and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials, with a total of 679 patients, in this review. Results between thrombolytics compared with heparin alone or placebo and heparin were similar in terms of: a) death rate: odds ratio (OR) 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.78; b) recurrence of pulmonary embolism: OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.20; c) major haemorrhagic events: OR 1.61; 95% CI 0.91 to 2.86; d) minor haemorrhagic events: OR 1.98; 95% CI 0.68 to 5.75.We found no trials comparing thrombolytic therapy to surgical intervention.Using recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) and heparin together compared to heparin alone appeared to reduce the need for further treatment for in-hospital events (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.71).Thrombolytics improved haemodynamic outcomes, perfusion lung scanning, pulmonary angiogram assessment and echocardiograms to a greater extent than heparin alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited evidence found we cannot conclude whether thrombolytic therapy is better than heparin for pulmonary embolism. More double-blind RCTs, with subgroup analysis of patients presenting with haemodynamically stable acute pulmonary embolism compared to those patients with a haemodynamic unstable condition, are required.

Changes in oxidative stress haemostatic parameters during the thrombolytic treatment of pulmonary embolism

A pulmonalis embolia a harmadik leggyakoribb cardiovascularis halálok. A masszív tüdőembólia thrombolysiskezelése kapcsán vérzéses szövődmény, reembólia léphet fel, a kórállapotot oxidatív stressz kíséri. Célok: Vizsgálatunkban az akut tüdőembólia rögoldó kezelése során elemeztük a thrombocytaaggregáció, a haemostaseologiai paraméterek, a leukocytaaktiváció és az oxidatív stressz markereinek változásait. Módszer: 15 beteget választottunk be, akik ultranagy dózisú sztreptokináz- ( n = 8) vagy altepláz- ( n = 7) kezelésben részesültek. Artériás vérmintát vettünk a thrombolysis előtt, azt követően pedig az első 24 órában 4 óránként, majd a 36. órában, és a 2., 3., 4., 5. és 30. napon. Mértük a spontán és az adrenalin, a kollagén és az adenozin-difoszfát indukálta thrombocytaaggregációt. A D-dimer- és fibrinogénszinteket az első napon 8 óránként, majd a fenti időpontokban egy alkalommal vizsgáltuk. Az oxidatív stressz és a leukocytaaktiváció elemzésére a thrombolysis előtt, a kezelést követően a 8. órában, majd az 1., 3., 5. és 30. napon vettünk vérmintákat. Az oxidatív stressz változásának nyomon követésére plazmából és teljes vérből malondialdehid, redukált glutation-, plazmaszulfhidrilcsoport-szinteket, szuperoxid-dizmutáz- és mieloperoxidázenzim-aktivitást mértünk. A teljes vér gyöktermelő kapacitását, vizsgálatát kemilumineszcenciával végeztük. Áramláscitometriával mértük a leukocyták által expresszált CD11a, CD18 és CD97 felszíni antigéneket. Eredmények: Az adrenalin indukálta thrombocytaaggregáció a 4. és a 8. órában csökkent ( p < 0,03), és szignifikánsan alacsony tartományban maradt a 36. órától a 3. napig az alteplázcsoporthoz képest. A sztreptokinázzal kezelteknél az adenozin-difoszfát indukálta aggregáció a 4. órában csökkent a kiindulási értékhez képest ( p < 0,05), kollagén esetében ugyanez a csökkenés a 4. és a 8. órában szignifikáns. A fibrinogénszintek a thrombolysist követően mindkét kezelési csoportban szignifikánsan csökkentek, míg a D-dimer a 8. órában szignifikánsan megemelkedett. Spontán thrombocytaaggregációt egyetlen mérési időpontban sem találtunk, jelentős vérzés, reembólia nem lépett fel. Az emelkedett malondialdehid-, reaktívoxigéngyök- és mieloperoxidáz-szintek, a csökkent redukált glutation- és plazmaszulfhidril-szintek a tüdőembóliás betegekben jelen lévő fokozott oxidatív stresszre utalnak. A thrombolysist követően a malondialdehid szignifikánsan emelkedik, a redukált glutation pedig csökken. A reaktív oxigéngyökök termelése a 3. és 5. nap között a legmagasabb. A thrombolysist kifejezett granulocyta és monocyta CD11a- és CD18-, valamint granulocyta CD97-expresszió-csökkenés kíséri ( p < 0,05). Következtetések: A masszív/szubmasszív pulmonalis embolia és az alkalmazott thrombolysis károsítja a thrombocytafunkciókat. A tüdőembólia reperfúziója során a fibrinogénszint csökkenése szignifikáns korrelációt mutat a tüdőperfúzió javulásával, ezek alapján a fibrinogénszint változása jól alkalmazható marker lehet a thrombolysis eredményességének akut felmérésére. Masszív/szubmasszív pulmonalis emboliás betegeknél a thrombolysis előtt fokozott oxidatív stressz állt fenn. Igazoltuk, hogy TL-t követően az oxidatív stressz és a leukocytaaktiváció még kifejezettebb, és e paraméterek csak a 30. napra normalizálódnak.