Why the study?
The benefits of catheter-based acute pulmonary embolism treatments compared with existing medical and surgical treatments remained unclear despite increasing adoption by pulmonary embolism response teams.
Do catheter-directed therapies improve clinical outcomes compared to alternative treatments in patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk acute pulmonary embolism?
Population
59 participants in 1 RCT with intermediate-risk (submassive) APE
Comparison
Ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase and systemic heparinisation vs systemic heparinisation alone
Design
Systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Follow-up
90 days
Authors
Loading...
May reduce post-PE syndrome risk in intermediate-risk patients; extends short-term risk models to long-term outcomes.
Do catheter-directed therapies improve clinical outcomes compared to alternative treatments in patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk acute pulmonary embolism?
There is currently insufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials to support the widespread adoption of catheter-based interventional therapies for acute pulmonary embolism over standard medical therapy.
Journal, society, and media accounts. Useful signal, not independent expert judgment.
Harvey et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: