Why the study?
Thrombolytic treatments for pulmonary embolism carry an increased bleeding risk, prompting the need for mechanical thrombectomy devices like the FlowTriever System that resolve vascular occlusion without thrombolytics.
Is the FlowTriever System safe and effective for treating intermediate-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism?
Is the FlowTriever System safe and effective for treating intermediate-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism?
The FlowTriever System offers a safe and effective mechanical thrombectomy option for intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism, avoiding the bleeding risks associated with thrombolytics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
FlowTriever appears safe and effective for intermediate- and high-risk PE; leaves open need for randomized comparisons versus thrombolysis.
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a significant cause of cardiovascular mortality, and its incidence has been increasing due to the growing aging population. Systemic or catheter-directed thrombolytic treatment for PE has an increased risk of bleeding that may offset the benefit in some patients. Mechanical thrombectomy devices such as the FlowTriever System are designed to resolve vascular occlusion and correct ventilation-perfusion mismatch without the need for thrombolytic drugs. This review covers the FlowTriever system, clinical data from the FlowTriever Pulmonary Embolectomy Clinical Study, FlowTriever for Acute Massive Pulmonary Embolism, and FlowTriever All-comer Registry for Patient Safety and Hemodynamics trials, and real-world experiences, demonstrating its safety and effectiveness in treating intermediate-risk and high-risk PE. Additionally, we explore off-label uses of the FlowTriever System for various large vessel thromboses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wasserstein et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: