Why the study?
What are the management strategies and treatment algorithms for patients with high-risk or massive pulmonary embolism?
What are the management strategies and treatment algorithms for patients with high-risk or massive pulmonary embolism?
Percutaneous catheter-based thrombectomy or thrombus fragmentation serves as a reasonable alternative for massive PE when fibrinolytics are contraindicated and surgical risk is excessively high.
Provides synthesized algorithm for high-risk PE; leaves open need for prospective comparative trials.
Massive or high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), defined as PE in the setting of (transient) arterial hypotension or frank cardiogenic shock, is associated with a poor prognosis. Fibrinolytic therapy is the mainstay of therapy, although data to support its effectiveness are limited. Although rarely performed, an alternate, accepted treatment strategy is surgical embolectomy. Contraindications to fibrinolytics are common in the setting of high-risk PE, and surgical embolectomy is frequently not performed owing to excessively high surgical risk. Under those circumstances, percutaneous, catheter-based thrombectomy or thrombus fragmentation is a reasonable alternative. In this article, we summarize the data available to date, evaluating the three different treatment options. We also attempt to synthesize a treatment algorithm to guide the practitioner in the treatment of patients with high-risk or massive PE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: