Comment: Comparison of Large-Bore Thrombectomy With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism

Comparison of Large-Bore Thrombectomy With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Pulmonary EmbolismJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsVol. 2Issue 1100453PreviewThere is significant debate on whether large-bore thrombectomy (LBT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) is superior for the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) while employing an early invasive strategy through endovascular therapies. Full-Text PDF Open AccessResponse to Letter to the Editor regarding the article “Comparison of Large-Bore Thrombectomy With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism”Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsVol. 2Issue 4101034PreviewWe appreciate the additional information from Giunio et al1 regarding the feasibility of antecubital access pigtail catheter for mechanical thrombus fragmentation and adjunctive catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) based on their previously published retrospective review of 27 consecutive patients. Indeed, ultrasound-assisted CDT has been studied against pigtail catheter CDT in a small cohort previously, which demonstrated similar mortality outcomes and similar reductions in pulmonary artery pressure and Miller score, but with decreased infusion times and lower total tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) infusion rates in the ultrasound-assisted CDT cohort. Full-Text PDF Open Access Feroze et al1Feroze R. Arora S. Tashtish N. et al.Comparison of large-bore thrombectomy with catheter-directed thrombolysis for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023; 2100453Google Scholar retrospectively investigated important problem in contemporary pulmonary embolism (PE) practice by demonstrating that there was no difference in mortality and rehospitalization rates in patients with intermediate-to-high-risk (IHR) PE treated with large-bore thrombectomy compared with patients treated with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). Furthermore, both treatment approaches for PE were similar concerning safety. Given the scarcity of randomized data in this setting and inconclusive evidence base regarding hard clinical end points,2Harvey J.J. Huang S. Uberoi R. Catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high risk (massive) and intermediate risk (submassive) acute pulmonary embolism.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022; 2022: CD013083Google Scholar,3Pietrasik A. Gąsecka A. Szarpak Ł. et al.Catheter-based therapies decrease mortality in patients with intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism: evidence from meta-analysis of 65,589 patients.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022; 9861307Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar we would wish to complement the authors' findings with our own recently published retrospective data.4Giunio L. Lozo M. Borovac J.A. Bradaric A. Zanchi J. Miric D. Feasibility and safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis via superficial cubital vein for the treatment of acute massive and submassive pulmonary embolism.Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej. 2021; 17: 389-397PubMed Google Scholar In our cohort of patients presenting with IHR acute PE, we performed CDT through the superficial cubital vein using a standard pigtail catheter and administering alteplase locally. This method had a robust effect on hemodynamics because it significantly reduced systolic pulmonary artery pressure, and mean pulmonary artery pressure, and improved mean systemic perfusion pressure at 12 hours after intervention with a concomitant reduction in the Miller score and index, both reflecting the angiographic severity of pulmonary artery obstruction and perfusion. Of importance, the rates of adverse events, particularly bleeding, were low with 2 bleeding events of which only 1 required the transfusion of 1 unit of packed red blood cells. Furthermore, procedural success was 100% with no intracranial hemorrhage, access-site bleeding, or death events. However, no comparator was available in our study. Taken together, data from the study by Feroze et al1Feroze R. Arora S. Tashtish N. et al.Comparison of large-bore thrombectomy with catheter-directed thrombolysis for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023; 2100453Google Scholar and our own suggest that CDT in patients with IHR acute PE is complementary to mechanical thrombectomy and is equally safe and effective procedure that can be successfully performed by cannulating either small or large veins by experienced operators. This is exquisitely important from the pharmacoeconomic standpoint. An option to use readily available catheters outside of dedicated thrombolytic or thrombectomy systems may provide significant economical savings, especially in resource-limited health care systems. Finally, both interventional approaches have a great potential to help a large proportion of patients with PE, and a transcubital access is also a feasible option in this scenario. However, as Feroze et al1Feroze R. Arora S. Tashtish N. et al.Comparison of large-bore thrombectomy with catheter-directed thrombolysis for the treatment of pulmonary embolism.J Soc Cardiovasc Angiogr Interv. 2023; 2100453Google Scholar rightly conclude, adequately powered randomized studies that would examine percutaneous thrombectomy versus CDT and optimal medical therapy are needed to confirm the clear signal of benefit associated with catheter modalities. Finally, these observations should be put in the context with the recently published consensus statement on percutaneous therapies in acute PE, stipulating that CDT-based strategies should be considered in all cases of IHR acute PE in whom systemic thrombolysis is contraindicated or failed or there was a hemodynamic deterioration despite full therapeutic anticoagulation.5Pruszczyk P. Klok F.K. Kucher N. et al.Percutaneous treatment options for acute pulmonary embolism: a clinical consensus statement by the ESC Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.EuroIntervention. 2022; 18: e623-e638Crossref PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar The authors declare no conflicts of interest. This letter did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.