Key result
In normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism, thrombolytic therapy was not significantly associated with improved survival compared to no thrombolysis (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.03-8.18; p=0.856).
Why the study?
Thrombolysis has a significantly lower evidence level in hemodynamically stable patients with pulmonary embolism, prompting an assessment of criteria used by clinicians to decide on thrombolytic therapy in real clinical practice.
What clinical factors influence the decision to administer thrombolytic therapy in normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism in real-world practice?
Population
299 normotensive patients hospitalized with verified pulmonary embolism and systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg
Comparison
Thrombolysis vs no thrombolysis
Design
Single-center retrospective cohort study
Authors
Loading...
No survival benefit seen with thrombolysis in normotensive PE; leaves open whether presentation-driven selection improves outcomes.
Cohort (n=299)
No
What clinical factors influence the decision to administer thrombolytic therapy in normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism in real-world practice?
Odds Ratio: 0.34 (95% CI 0.03–8.18)
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 1.9%
p-value: p=0.856
In real-world clinical practice, the decision to administer thrombolysis in normotensive pulmonary embolism patients is driven by clinical presentation rather than objective risk markers like troponin or right ventricular dysfunction.
Сherepanova et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Pulmonary embolism (n=299). Thrombolytic therapy vs. No thrombolytic therapy was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.03-8.18, p=0.856). In normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism, thrombolytic therapy was not significantly associated with improved survival compared to no thrombolysis (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.03-8.18; p=0.856).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: