Clinical efficacy of low dose recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator for the treatment of acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism

Safety and efficacy of clot-dissolving therapies for submassive pulmonary embolism: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a serious condition that needs quick and effective treatment. Anticoagulation therapy is the usual care for most PE patients but may not work well for higher-risk ones. Thrombolysis breaks the clot and improves blood flow. It can be given systemically or locally. Ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (USAT) is a new technique that boosts clot-busting drugs. This network meta-analysis compares death, bleeding, and benefits of four treatments in acute submassive PE.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched relevant databases up to July 2023 for RCTs. The outcomes encompassed all-cause mortality, major and minor bleeding, PE recurrence, and hospital stay duration. Bayesian network meta-analysis computed odds ratios (OR) and 95 % CI estimates.

RESULTS

In this network meta-analysis of 23 RCTs involving 2521 PE patients, we found that SCDT had the most favorable performance for mortality, as it had the lowest odds ratio (OR) among the four interventions (OR 5.41e-42; 95 % CI, 5.68e-97, 1.37e-07). USAT had the worst performance for major bleeding, as it had the highest OR among the four interventions (OR 4.73e+04; 95 % CI, 1.65, 9.16e+13). SCDT also had the best performance for minor bleeding, as it had the lowest OR among the four interventions (OR 5.68e-11; 95 % CI, 4.97e-25, 0.386).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that SCDT is the most effective treatment intervention in improving the risks of All-cause mortality and bleeding. Thrombolytic therapy helps in improving endpoints including the risk of PE recurrence and the duration of hospital stay.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with systemic thrombolysis and anticoagulation in patients with intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic options for intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) include anticoagulation, systemic thrombolysis and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT); however, the role of CDT remains controversial. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of CDT with other therapeutic options using network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library from inception to Oct. 18, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared therapeutic options for PE, including anticoagulation, systemic thrombolysis and CDT among patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE. The efficacy outcome was in-hospital death. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage and minor bleeding.

RESULTS

We included data from 44 studies, representing 20 006 patients. Compared with systemic thrombolysis, CDT was associated with a decreased risk of death (odd ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.57), intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.64), major bleeding (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70) and blood transfusion (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.77). However, no difference in minor bleeding was observed between the 2 therapeutic options (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66-1.87). Compared with anticoagulation, CDT was also associated with decreased risk of death (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.52), with no increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.63-2.79) or major bleeding (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.88-1.75).

INTERPRETATION

With moderate certainty of evidence, the risk of death and major bleeding complications was lower with CDT than with systemic thrombolysis. Compared with anticoagulation, CDT was associated with a probable lower risk of death and a similar risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, with moderate certainty of evidence. Although these findings are largely based on observational data, CDT may be considered as a first-line therapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO - CRD42020182163.

Mortality and bleeding associated with the management of sub-massive pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation (AC) for low and intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) and systemic thrombolysis (tPA) for high risk (massive) PE. How these treatment options compare with other modalities of treatment such as catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT), ultrasound assisted catheter thrombolysis (USAT), and administering lower dose of thrombolytics (LDT) is unclear. There is no study that has compared all these treatment options. We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients with submassive (intermediate risk) PE. Fourteen randomized controlled trials were included, comprising 2132 patients. On Bayesian network meta-analysis, a significant decrease in mortality was noted in tPA versus AC. There was no significant difference between USAT versus CDT. For risk of major bleeding, there was no significant difference in relative risk of major bleeding between tPA versus AC and USAT versus CDT. tPA was found to have a significantly higher risk of minor bleeding and a lower risk of recurrent PE compared to AC. Systemic thrombolysis is associated with a significant reduction in mortality and recurrent PE compared to anticoagulation but an increased risk of minor bleeding. There was no difference in risk of major bleeding. Our study also shows that while the newer modalities of treatment for pulmonary embolism are promising, there is lack of data to comment on the purported advantages.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Thrombolytic Agents for Pulmonary Embolism: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Thrombolytic agents and anticoagulants are the two classes of medication used in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). There is continuous renewal and iteration of thrombolytic agents, and the efficacy and adverse effects of different agents have different effects on PE due to their different mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different thrombolytic agents in the treatment of all types of acute PE: hemodynamically unstable PE (massive PE) and hemodynamically stable PE (submassive PE and low-risk PE), using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A search was conducted of the following databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing thrombolytic agents with heparin or other thrombolytic agents in patients with acute PE; the clinical outcomes included patient mortality, recurrent PE, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) after treatment, and major and minor bleeding. The measurement duration of outcome indicators was the longest follow-up period. Thereafter, a network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian network framework.

RESULTS

A total of 29 RCTs (3,067 patients) were included, of which 6 studies (304 patients) were massive PE, 14 studies (2,173 patients) were submassive PE, 1 study (83 patients) included massive and submassive PE, and 8 studies (507 patients) were PE of unknown type. The treatment regimens included thrombolytic therapy (alteplase, reteplase, tenecteplase, streptokinase, and urokinase) and anticoagulant therapy alone. The results showed that the mortality using thrombolytic agents (except tenecteplase) was significantly lower compared with heparin. The recurrence of PE with alteplase was significantly lower compared with heparin (RR = 0.23, 95% CI, 0.04, 0.65). The PASP after using alteplase was significantly lower compared with heparin (mean difference = -11.36, 95% CI, -21.45, -1.56). Compared with heparin, the incidence of minor bleeding associated with tenecteplase was higher (RR = 3.27, 95% CI, 1.36, 7.39); compared with streptokinase, the incidence of minor bleeding associated with tenecteplase was higher (RR = 3.22, 95% CI, 1.01, 11.10).

CONCLUSION

For patients with acute PE, four thrombolytic agents (alteplase, reteplase, streptokinase, and urokinase) appeared to be superior in efficacy compared with anticoagulants alone due to a reduction in mortality and no increase in bleeding risk. Alteplase may be a better choice because it not only reduced mortality but also reduced PE recurrence rate and treated PASP. Tenecteplase did not reduce mortality compared with anticoagulants alone and may not be a good choice of thrombolytic agent due to an increase in minor bleeding compared with streptokinase and anticoagulants alone. Thrombolytic drugs should be rationally selected to optimize the thrombolytic regimen and achieve as good a balance as possible between thrombolysis and bleeding.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Thrombolysis Plus Anticoagulation vs. Anticoagulation Alone for the Treatment of Acute Submassive Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis plus anticoagulant therapy vs. anticoagulant therapy alone in acute submassive pulmonary embolism (PE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing thrombolytic therapy and anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone in acute submassive PE patients from 1 Jan 1980 to 20 Jan 2021, with no drug or dose restrictions. Data on upgraded treatment of clinical deterioration, all-cause mortality, PE recurrence and bleeding events were extracted and analyzed using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 1871 patients were included in the study after screening. In terms of efficacy, thrombolysis combined with anticoagulant therapy reduced the need for upgrading treatment (3.6 vs. 10.9%, risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24- 0.54, p<0.00001) and PE recurrence (0.8 vs. 2.9%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.69, p=0.003) in patients with acute submassive PE. Compared with anticoagulant therapy alone, the concomitant use of thrombolysis was associated with lower all-cause mortality (1.3 vs. 3.0%, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26-0.87, p=0.02), but it increased minor bleeding rate (31.4 vs. 8.4%, RR 3.71, 95% CI 2.82-4.88, p<0.0001) and major bleeding rate (8.8 vs. 2.6%, RR 3.35, 95%CI 2.03-5.54, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The use of thrombolysis plus anticoagulant therapy in acute submassive PE was negatively associated with patients requiring escalation of treatment, PE recurrence, and all-cause mortality, but it was positively associated with bleeding.

Low-dose thrombolysis for submassive pulmonary embolism

The role of thrombolysis in submassive pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial due to the high risk of hemorrhage. This study aimed to evaluate the role of half-dose tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) in preventing death/hemodynamic decompensation in submassive (intermediate-risk) PE without increasing the risk of bleeding. In a prospective, non-randomized, open-label, single-center trial, we compared 50 mg rt-PA plus low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with LMWH in submassive (intermediate-risk) PE. Eligible cases had confirmed pulmonary hypertension on echocardiography, and/or right ventricular cavity expansion and/or interventricular septal deviation on echocardiography, and/or right to left ventricular ratio equal to or greater than 0.9 mm on CT angiography. The primary outcome was death or hemodynamic decompensation within 7 and 30 days after treatment was given. The primary safety outcome was major extracranial bleeding or hemorrhagic stroke within 7 days. Seventy-six patients were included in the study. Total death/hemodynamic decompensation in the first 7 and 30 days was significantly less in the half-dose rt-PA group than in the LMWH group (p=0.028 and p=0.009, respectively). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of recurrent embolism and pulmonary hypertension at 6-month follow-up (p=1.000 and p=0.778). There was no intracranial hemorrhage in any of the patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of major or minor bleeding complications. This trial showed half-dose rt-PA treatment in submassive (intermediate-risk) PE prevented death/hemodynamic decompensation in the first 7-day and 30-day period compared with LMWH treatment without increasing the risk of bleeding.

Clinical safety and efficacy of thrombolytic therapy with low-dose prolonged infusion of tissue type plasminogen activator in patients with intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism

: The patients with intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism who have acute right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and myocardial injury without overt hemodynamic compromise may be candidates for thrombolytic therapy. Alternative low-dose thrombolytic therapy strategies with prolonged infusion may further decrease the complication rates as its efficacy and safety have been previously proven in the management of prosthetic valve thrombosis. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of low-dose prolonged thrombolytic therapy regimen in intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism patients. This study enrolled 16 retrospectively evaluated patients (female 9, mean age: 70.9 ± 13.5 years) with the diagnosis of acute pulmonary embolism who were treated with low-dose and slow-infusion of tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA). All patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography and computed tomography scan for assessment of thrombolytic therapy success. Low-dose prolonged thrombolytic therapy was successful in all patients. The mean t-PA dose used was 48.4 ± 6.3 mg. There was residual segmental thrombus in nine (56.3%) patients after thrombolytic therapy. The arterial oxygen saturation and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased after thrombolytic therapy whereas heart rate, RV to left ventricular (LV) ratio, systolic pulmonary artery pressure, and the frequencies of hypotension and tachypnea significantly decreased. There was no cerebrovascular accident or major bleeding requiring transfusion. There were two minor bleedings (12.5%) including hemoptysis and epistaxis. Thrombolytic therapy in these intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism patients was associated with excellent clinical outcomes and survival to discharge (100%) without any 60-day mortality. Prolonged thrombolytic therapy regimen with low-dose and slow-infusion of t-PA may be associated with lower complication rates without comprimising effectiveness in patients with acute intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism.

Thrombolytics for venous thromboembolic events: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Thrombolytic therapy might reduce venous thromboembolism-related mortality and morbidity, but it could also increase the risk of major bleeding. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of thrombolytics in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep venous thrombosis (DVT). We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant randomized controlled trials up to February 2019. Multiple investigators independently screened and collected data. We included 45 studies (4740 participants). Pooled estimates of PE studies indicate probable reduction in mortality with thrombolysis (risk ratio [RR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.94) (moderate certainty) and possible reduction in nonfatal PE recurrence (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.35-0.89) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of DVT studies indicate the possible absence of effects on mortality (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.26-2.28) (low certainty) and recurrent DVT (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.56-1.76) (low certainty), but possible reduction in postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) with thrombolytics (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) (low certainty). Pooled estimates of the complete body of evidence indicate increases in major bleeding (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.46-2.46) (high certainty) and a probable increase in intracranial bleeding (RR, 3.17; 95% CI 1.19-8.41) (moderate certainty) with thrombolytics. Our findings indicate that thrombolytics probably reduce mortality in patients with submassive- or intermediate-risk PE and may reduce PTS in patients with proximal DVT at the expense of a significant increase in major bleeding. Because the balance between benefits and harms is profoundly influenced by the baseline risks of critical outcomes, stakeholders involved in decision making would need to weigh these effects to define which clinical scenarios merit the use of thrombolytics.

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.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.