Key result
Catheter-based therapy linked to ~46% lower odds of in-hospital death or arrest in cancer-associated PE.
Why the study?
Data on outcomes of catheter-based therapies for intermediate or high-risk PE in patients with cancer are scarce because most clinical studies exclude this population.
Does catheter-based therapy reduce in-hospital death or cardiac arrest in adults with cancer and intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism?
Cohort (n=2,084)
Yes
Does catheter-based therapy reduce in-hospital death or cardiac arrest in adults with cancer and intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism?
Odds Ratio: 0.54 (95% CI 0.46–0.64)
Absolute Event Rate: 16.9% vs 27.9%
p-value: p=<0.001
Catheter-based therapy for severe pulmonary embolism in cancer patients may significantly reduce in-hospital mortality, albeit with a higher risk of bleeding, suggesting a potential role that requires further prospective randomized trials.
May support CBT consideration in cancer PE despite higher bleeding; hypothesis-generating pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality. Catheter-based therapies (CBT), including catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and mechanical thrombectomy, have been developed and are used in patients with intermediate or high-risk PE. However, there is a paucity of data on outcomes in patients with cancer as most clinical studies exclude this group of patients. AIMS: To characterize outcomes of patients with cancer admitted with intermediate or high-risk PE treated with CBT compared with no CBT. METHODS: Patients with an admission diagnosis of intermediate or high-risk PE and a history of cancer from October 2015 to December 2018 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital death or cardiac arrest (CA) and major bleeding. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between patients treated with and without CBT. Variables that remained unbalanced after IPTW were adjusted using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2084 unweighted admissions (10,420 weighted) for intermediate or high-risk PE and cancer were included, of which 136 (6.5%) were treated with CBT. After IPTW, CBT was associated with lower death or CA (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.64) but higher major bleeding (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.65). After stratifying by PE risk type, patients treated with CBT had lower risk of death or CA in both intermediate (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.75) and high-risk PE (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). However, patients with CBT were associated with increased risk of major bleeding in intermediate-risk PE (aOR 2.12, 95% CI 1.67-2.69) but not in those with high-risk PE (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer hospitalized with intermediate or high-risk PE, treatment with CBT was associated with lower risk of in-hospital death or CA but higher risk of bleeding. Prospective studies and inclusion of patients with cancer in randomized trials are warranted to confirm our findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leiva et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism and cancer (n=2,084). Catheter-based therapy (CBT) vs. No catheter-based therapy was evaluated on In-hospital death or cardiac arrest (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.64, p=<0.001). Catheter-based therapy reduced the odds of in-hospital death or cardiac arrest by 46% (aOR 0.54) compared to no catheter-based therapy in cancer patients with intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: