Key result
Percutaneous therapies and MCS offer emerging alternatives to systemic thrombolysis in high-risk PE.
Why the study?
Traditional therapies for high-risk PE have efficacy and candidacy limitations with limited benefit data, while evidence for expanding percutaneous treatment options remains limited.
Does percutaneous management with or without mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism compared to traditional systemic thrombolysis?
Does percutaneous management with or without mechanical circulatory support improve outcomes in patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism compared to traditional systemic thrombolysis?
Given the significant limitations and bleeding risks of systemic thrombolysis, catheter-based therapies and mechanical circulatory support represent a potential paradigm shift in the management of high-risk pulmonary embolism.
May warrant consideration at experienced centers in select high-risk PE; leaves open need for RCTs to establish superiority over thrombolysis.
Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) leads to an abrupt increase in pulmonary vascular resistance and right ventricular afterload, and when significant enough, can result in hemodynamic instability. High-risk PE is a dire cardiovascular emergency and portends a poor prognosis. Traditional therapeutic options to rapidly reduce thrombus burden like systemic thrombolysis and surgical pulmonary endarterectomy have limitations, both with regards to appropriate candidates and efficacy, and have limited data demonstrating their benefit in high-risk PE. There are growing percutaneous treatment options for acute PE that include both localized thrombolysis and mechanical embolectomy. Data for such therapies with high-risk PE are currently limited. However, given the limitations, there is an opportunity to improve outcomes, with percutaneous treatments options offering new mechanisms for clot reduction with a possible improved safety profile compared with systemic thrombolysis. Additionally, mechanical circulatory support options allow for complementary treatment for patients with persistent instability, allowing for a bridge to more definitive treatment options. As more data develop, a shift toward a percutaneous approach with mechanical circulatory support may become a preferred option for the management of high-risk PE at tertiary care centers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carroll et al. (2023) conducted a review in High-risk (massive) acute pulmonary embolism. Percutaneous management and mechanical circulatory support vs. Systemic thrombolysis or surgical embolectomy was evaluated. Percutaneous management and mechanical circulatory support offer emerging alternatives to systemic thrombolysis for high-risk pulmonary embolism.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: