Key result
Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (4.1% vs 1.9%, OR 2.13) compared to standard catheter-directed thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism.
Why the study?
To compare the clinical efficacy of ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis versus standard catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
Does ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis improve clinical outcomes or reduce bleeding compared to standard catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with non-low-risk acute pulmonary embolism?
Meta-Analysis (n=451)
Does ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis improve clinical outcomes or reduce bleeding compared to standard catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with non-low-risk acute pulmonary embolism?
Odds Ratio: 2.13 (95% CI 0.7–6.53)
Absolute Event Rate: 4.1% vs 1.9%
p-value: p=0.19
In patients with non-low-risk acute pulmonary embolism, ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis and standard catheter-directed thrombolysis showed similar rates of mortality and bleeding, though standard therapy was associated with better right ventricular function improvement and shorter hospital stays.
USAT shows no safety advantage over SCDT in non-low-risk aPE; confirms similar mortality and bleeding risks while leaving open questions on RV remodeling.
Aim To compare the clinical efficacy of ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) vs. standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (SCDT) in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (aPE). Methods This study analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients with non-low-risk aPE who received USAT or SCDT. The primary outcomes were all-cause death, total bleeding, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary thrombotic load score (Miller), improvement in right ventricular-to-left ventricular ratio (RV/LV), dose and duration of the thrombolytic drug tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), length of stay (LOS) in the ICU, and total LOS in the hospital. Results A total of seven articles and 451 patients were included in this study. 241 patients were in the USAT group and 210 patients were in the SCDT group. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, total bleeding, and major bleeding between the two groups. Miller scores for pulmonary thrombus also showed no difference between the two groups, but pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) was lower in the SCDT group after-treatment. The reduction of RV/LV from baseline was more pronounced in the SCDT group than in the USAT group (OR: −0.14, 95%CI: −0.20 to 0.07, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 0%). Total dose of tPA and duration of infusion in the USAT group were lower than those in the SCDT group, but there was no significant statistical difference. LOS in the ICU was similar between the two groups, while LOS in the hospital was lower in the SCDT group. Conclusion This study did not detect any differences in all-cause mortality, total bleeding, and major bleeding between non-low-risk aPE patients treated with USAT or SCDT. Improvement in right ventricular function was better in the SCDT group, and hospital LOS was lower in the SCDT group.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in acute pulmonary embolism (n=451). Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) vs. Standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (SCDT) was evaluated on All-cause mortality (OR 2.13, 95% CI 0.70-6.53, p=0.19). Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (4.1% vs 1.9%, OR 2.13) compared to standard catheter-directed thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: