Comparison of outcomes and complications in conventional versus ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis for treatment of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute submassive a massive pulmonary embolism are known as leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in emergency departments. Choosing the optimal type of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of pulmonary embolism presents a quandary to the practitioners. To the best of our knowledge, there is no meta-analysis comparing superiority of conventional CDT and ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis (USACDT). Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile. METHODS: A systematic literature search of previous published studies comparing conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile was carried out in the electronic databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception to December 2021. Data were analyzed by comprehensive meta-analysis software (CMA, version 3). RESULTS: The meta-analysis included nine studies with a total of 705 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that there is no significant difference between two groups with respect to pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (SMD: -0.084; 95% CI: -0.287 to 0.12; p: 0.41), RV/LV (SMD: -0.003; 95% CI: -0.277 to 0.270; p: 0.98), and Miller score (SMD: -0.345; 95% CI: -1.376 to 0.686; p: 0.51). Similarly, we found no statistically significant differences between two groups regarding major and minor bleeding (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed that when compared with USACDT, conventional CDT provides similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes or safety for treatment of pulmonary embolism without the need for very expensive technologies. However, randomized clinical trials are required to further investigate cost-effectiveness of USACDT in comparison with conventional CDT.

Chest computed tomography severity score is a reliable predictor of mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease co-infected with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is considered a global health crisis. The data related to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with COVID-19 are incomplete, especially the findings of the chest computed tomography (CT). The aim of the current study was to investigate the severity of the disease of COVID-19 in patients with COPD based on CT severity score and to evaluate its predictive power in the mortality of patients. METHODS: In a retrospective study, demographic, clinical, and CT scan findings of COPD patients with COVID-19 were extracted from March 2020 to February 2022. CT severity score was determined based on the extent and nature of involvement of lungs in CT scan findings. By performing receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were determined the disease severity and survival probability. RESULTS: The most frequent radiological findings in chest CT scan included ground glass opacities (89.3%), consolidations (51.8%), crazy-paving pattern (46.4%), and septal thickening (35.7%). The mean CT severity score of deceased patients (34.61 ± 18.73) was significantly higher than recovered patients (16.71 ± 14.01, p < 0.001). Based on the ROC and Kaplan-Meier survival curves, it was revealed that CT severity score was a valuable criteria in the diagnosis of mortality in COPD patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study revealed that the CT severity scoring in COPD patients with COVID-19 was valuable in identifying poor prognosis, although further studies are needed.