13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with anticoagulation alone for treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          It is unclear if ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (UACDT) confers benefit over anticoagulation (AC) alone in the management of intermediate-risk (“submassive”) pulmonary embolism (PE), defined by evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in hemodynamically stable patients. This study sought to evaluate any lasting advantage of UACDT on mortality and resolution of RV dysfunction in intermediate-risk PE at a large academic medical center. Adults aged ≤ 86 years admitted with intermediate-risk PE from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if there was a history of cancer, pre-existing pulmonary hypertension, pregnancy or postpartum status, contraindication to AC, or treatment with systemic thrombolysis. Baseline Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) scores were computed. Outcomes including length of stay (LOS), bleeding complications, resolution of RV dysfunction, and mortality were compared between patients who received UACDT and those managed with AC alone. A total of 104 patients met inclusion criteria, 65 of whom underwent UACDT. The cohorts had similar PESI scores ( P = 0.45) and no clearly imbalanced confounding variables. There was no significant difference in LOS ( P = 0.11). UACDT was associated with more bleeding complications (exact P = 0.04). Follow-up transthoracic echocardiograms performed in 54 UACDT and 24 AC patients demonstrated similar rates of resolution of RV dysfunction (61% in UACDT patients versus 75% in AC patients, P = 0.25). Overall one-year mortality was approximately 5% in both groups (exact P > 0.99). In this limited retrospective analysis of intermediate-risk PE patients, UACDT treatment was not associated with mortality benefit or increased resolution of RV dysfunction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Acute pulmonary embolism.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of Thrombolytic Therapy on the Long-Term Outcome of Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

            The long-term effect of thrombolytic treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) is unknown.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prospective validation of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index. A clinical prognostic model for pulmonary embolism.

              Practice guidelines recommend outpatient care for selected patients with non-massive pulmonary embolism (PE), but fail to specify how these low-risk patients should be identified. Using data from U.S. patients, we previously derived the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), a prediction rule that risk stratifies patients with PE. We sought to validate the PESI in a European patient cohort. We prospectively validated the PESI in patients with PE diagnosed at six emergency departments in three European countries. We used baseline data for the rule's 11 prognostic variables to stratify patients into five risk classes (I-V) of increasing probability of mortality. The outcome was overall mortality at 90 days after presentation. To assess the accuracy of the PESI to predict mortality, we estimated the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for low- (risk classes I/II) versus higher-risk patients (risk classes III-V), and the discriminatory power using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Among 357 patients with PE, overall mortality was 5.9%, ranging from 0% in class I to 17.9% in class V. The 186 (52%) low-risk patients had an overall mortality of 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-3.8%) compared to 11.1% (95% CI: 6.8-16.8%) in the 171 (48%) higher-risk patients. The PESI had a high sensitivity (91%, 95% CI: 71-97%) and a negative predictive value (99%, 95% CI: 96-100%) for predicting mortality. The area under the ROC curve was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.86). The PESI reliably identifies patients with PE who are at low risk of death and who are potential candidates for outpatient care. The PESI may help physicians make more rational decisions about hospitalization for patients with PE.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pulm Circ
                Pulm Circ
                PUL
                sppul
                Pulmonary Circulation
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                2045-8932
                2045-8940
                24 August 2018
                Oct-Dec 2018
                : 8
                : 4
                : 2045894018800265
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology & Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School
                [3 ]Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School
                Author notes
                [*]Aaron B. Waxman, Center for Pulmonary Heart Diseases, Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital/ Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Email: abwaxman@ 123456bwh.harvard.edu
                Article
                10.1177_2045894018800265
                10.1177/2045894018800265
                6134495
                30142025
                4d1ebcae-7840-48ff-b480-ab7f81fecaac
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 18 April 2018
                : 22 August 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Harvard Catalyst, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100007299;
                Award ID: NCRR & NCATS UL1 TR001102
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000002;
                Award ID: NHLBI U01 HL125215
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000002;
                Award ID: R01 HL131910
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000002;
                Award ID: R42 HL132742
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                October-December 2018

                Respiratory medicine
                mechanical thrombolysis,thrombolytic therapy,pulmonary thromboembolism

                Comments

                Comment on this article