Why the study?
Systemic thrombolysis remains largely underused in daily practice for haemodynamically unstable pulmonary embolism, and a clear time window for reperfusion therapy has not been defined.
Does early reperfusion therapy improve survival in haemodynamically unstable pulmonary embolism patients?
Does early reperfusion therapy improve survival in haemodynamically unstable pulmonary embolism patients?
This review highlights the lack of a defined time window for reperfusion therapy in high-risk pulmonary embolism and explores the potential survival benefits of earlier intervention.
Undefined reperfusion window in high-risk PE warrants cautious individualized decisions; leaves open need for prospective trials to define standards.
High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Systemic thrombolysis remains the most evidenced-based treatment for haemodynamically unstable PE, but in daily clinical practice, it remains largely underused. In addition, unlike acute myocardial infarction or stroke, a clear time window for reperfusion therapy, including fibrinolysis, for high-risk PE has not been defined either for fibrinolysis or for the more recently incorporated options of catheter-based thrombolysis or thrombectomy. The aim of the present article is to review the current evidence supporting the potential benefit of earlier administration of reperfusion in haemodynamically unstable PE patients and suggest some potential strategies to further explore this issue.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zuin et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: