Key result
Catheter-directed thrombolysis for submassive pulmonary embolism was associated with longer ICU length of stay versus systemic tPA and heparin.
Why the study?
Limited data describe the pragmatic use of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and compare CDT to other therapies in venous thromboembolism.
Does catheter-directed thrombolysis improve clinical outcomes or resource utilization compared to heparin or systemic thrombolysis in patients with submassive pulmonary embolism?
Observational (n=70)
No
Does catheter-directed thrombolysis improve clinical outcomes or resource utilization compared to heparin or systemic thrombolysis in patients with submassive pulmonary embolism?
In patients with submassive pulmonary embolism, catheter-directed thrombolysis is associated with prolonged ICU length of stay and frequent escalation of care compared to traditional therapies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Catheter-directed thrombolysis may prolong ICU stay in submassive PE; leaves open net benefit versus heparin or systemic thrombolysis.
BACKGROUND: Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is a novel treatment for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited data describe pragmatic use of CDT and compare CDT to other VTE therapies. OBJECTIVE: Assess the use of CDT and comparatively evaluate CDT, anticoagulation, and systemic thrombolysis in submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: Retrospective, single-center, chart audit. Part 1 described all patients who received CDT for VTE. Part 2 matched patients with submassive PE who received CDT, heparin, or systemic thrombolysis and assessed length of stay (LOS), bleeding, all cause in-hospital mortality, and escalation of care. RESULTS: For part 1, 70 CDT patients were identified; 42 with DVT and 28 with PE. ICU LOS was longer (2.5 ± 2.9 vs. 4.9 ± 8.4 days, p = 0.07), escalation of care more frequent (0% vs. 35.7%, p < 0.0001), and hospital mortality greater (2.4% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.014) in the PE group. For part 2, 21 CDT patients were matched to 21 heparin and 21 systemic thrombolysis patients. All CDT and tPA patients were admitted to the ICU versus only 6 (28.6%, p < 0.001) heparin patients. ICU LOS was significantly longer in the CDT group versus systemic tPA and systemic anticoagulation (80.7 ± 64.1 vs. 48.2 ± 27.7 vs. 24.9 ± 59.1 hours; p = 0.0048). More IVC filters and thrombectomies were performed in the CDT group. CONCLUSIONS: CDT is frequently used for both DVT and PE and requires ICU admission. Escalation of care is common when CDT is used for PE. For submassive PE, CDT is associated with prolonged ICU LOS compared to heparin or systemic thrombolysis. Resource utilization with CDT requires further evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bradley et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Venous thromboembolism and submassive pulmonary embolism (n=70). Catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. Heparin or systemic thrombolysis was evaluated on ICU length of stay (hours) (p=0.0048). Catheter-directed thrombolysis for submassive pulmonary embolism was associated with longer ICU length of stay versus systemic tPA and heparin.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: