Abstract Rationale Chronic thromboembolic disease (CTED) is characterized by persistent pulmonary vascular obstruction due to unresolved thromboemboli despite at least three months of anticoagulation. Although resting hemodynamics often remain normal, affected patients frequently develop functional limitation due to exercise-induced pulmonary hypertension, ventilatory inefficiency, limited stroke volume augmentation, or preload insufficiency. Such exercise-induced pathophysiological dysregulation can significantly impair quality of life and contribute to poor long-term outcomes. Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) is an established treatment for Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension (CTEPH), offering significant improvements in hemodynamics and survival. Its role in CTED, however, remains unclear. While CTED has traditionally been managed with anticoagulation and supportive therapy, emerging evidence suggests PEA may provide symptomatic and functional benefit in selected CTED patients. Given the ongoing uncertainty regarding the role of PEA in CTED, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to define its safety profile and clinical efficacy in this patient subset. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar was conducted from database inception to March 1, 2025. Of 2,244 records screened, 34 full-text articles were assessed, and seven met the inclusion criteria. Results Across the included studies, the pooled baseline mean values were 20.48 ± 3.03 mm Hg for mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP), 2.83 ± 1.11 Wood units for pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), and 397 ± 100.08 m for the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD). Pulmonary Endarterectomy (PEA) was consistently associated with significant improvements in hemodynamic and functional outcomes; PEA reduced mPAP by 3.58 mmHg (pooled Standardized Mean Change (SMC)=-1.03; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.83; P .05), PVR by 0.86 Woods units (pooled SMC=-0.86; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.67; P .05), while, conversely, increased 6MWD by 37.49 m (pooled SMC, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.67; P .05). Study-level effect sizes for 6MWD ranged from 0.21 to 1.47 (Figure 1A). This clinical improvement is further reflected in the enhancement of the NYHA functional class, as illustrated in Figure 1B. Conclusion PEA was associated with significant reductions in mPAP and PVR, as well as a considerable improvement in functional capacity in patients with CTED, with robust results across multiple tests for bias, influence, and sensitivity analyses. These findings support PEA as a viable therapeutic option for selected patients with CTED, although further research is warranted. This abstract is funded by: None
Hmeedan et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: