Key result
Large-bore thrombectomy for PE yields a ~5-fold higher win ratio than CDT, driven by fewer ICU stays.
Why the study?
Randomized data on clinical outcomes of LBMT versus CDT for pulmonary embolism were recently reported, prompting this post hoc analysis to provide additional data on hospital and ICU utilization trends.
Does large-bore mechanical thrombectomy improve clinical outcomes and reduce hospital resource utilization compared to catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism?
Does large-bore mechanical thrombectomy improve clinical outcomes and reduce hospital resource utilization compared to catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism?
Large-bore mechanical thrombectomy significantly reduces clinical deterioration, ICU admissions, and total hospital length of stay compared to catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.
Should prefer large-bore mechanical thrombectomy over CDT in intermediate-risk PE; provides first direct RCT evidence of superior outcomes with less resource use.[[1]](https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364)[[2]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
Introduction: Randomized data on clinical outcomes of large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) versus catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for pulmonary embolism (PE) have recently been reported. This post hoc analysis provides additional data on the trial’s hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) utilization trends. Methods: The PEERLESS randomized controlled trial (NCT05111613) enrolled 550 acute intermediate-risk PE patients randomized to LBMT (n=274) or CDT (n=276). Additionally, a non-randomized thrombolytics contraindication cohort (CC) enrolled 142 patients treated with LBMT. The primary endpoint was a win-ratio of all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding per ISTH definition, clinical deterioration (CD) and/or bailout (BO), and post-procedural ICU stay through discharge or 7 days. Patients were followed through the 30-day visit. Results: The primary endpoint win ratio was 5.01 (95% CI: 3.68–6.97; P< 0.001) favoring LBMT over CDT. This finding was driven by significantly lower rates of CD/BO and ICU utilization in the LBMT arm. CD/BO occurred in 1.8% (5/274) of LBMT patients vs 5.4% (15/276) of CDT patients (P=0.0378), and in 3.5% (5/142) of CC patients. All CD/BO events in the LBMT (5/5) and 4/5 events in the CC patients occurred on the procedure day, with the fifth CC event occurring the next day. In contrast, the 15 CD/BO events in the CDT group began a mean of 2.1 ± 1.7 days after CDT initiation and were more clinically severe. Less than half (41.6%) of LBMT patients had post-procedure ICU stays (mean 14.2 ± 25.4 hours), with 50% of stays due to institutional standard of care only. In contrast, 98.6% of CDT patients had post-procedure ICU stays (P< 0.0001 vs LBMT) with mean stay of 39.3 ± 28.0 hours (P< 0.0001 vs LBMT). In CC patients, who were sicker with higher bleeding risks, less than half (45.8%) had post-procedural ICU stays with a mean stay of 20.3 ± 36.4 hours. LBMT patients had shorter total hospital stays than CDT patients (4.5 ± 2.8 vs 5.3 ± 3.9 overnights; P=0.0022), with 7.8 ± 7.4 overnights for CC patients. Conclusions: Less frequent ICU admissions, shorter hospital and ICU stays, and fewer CD/BO events after the index procedure suggest that LBMT may use fewer hospital resources to manage PE. Additional analyses incorporating specific costs are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parth Rali (2026) studied this question. Large-bore mechanical thrombectomy for pulmonary embolism yielded a win ratio of 5.01 over catheter-directed thrombolysis, driven by lower clinical deterioration and ICU stays (41.6% vs 98.6%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: