RESUMO
Treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) varies based upon risk stratification and ranges from outpatient oral anticoagulation to emergency surgical embolectomy. Patients with high-risk PE can be considered for systemic thrombolytic (ST) based upon guideline recommendations, but intermediate-risk PE does not currently have strong evidence to guide primary reperfusion strategies via thrombolytic administration. Ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (USAT) is an alternative reperfusion option to ST but is not currently recommended as first line in any key guidelines due to limited available evidence. This retrospective, multicenter, observational study compares 210 patients treated with USAT (n = 105) or ST (n = 105) for acute high- or intermediate-risk PE in three hospitals. Baseline characteristics were significant in that severity of illness was higher in those that received ST, which limited comparisons of outcomes. The primary outcome of major bleeding in patients receiving USAT was 15.2% and 22.9% in those that received ST. Efficacy of reperfusion strategy was observed to be 86.7% of patients in USAT group and 65.7% in ST group. Reperfusion strategies had no difference in in-hospital death, intensive care length of stay, or hospital length of stay. Predefined subgroup analysis found that high-risk PE had higher mortality (14.7%) than intermediate-risk PE (0%) regardless of reperfusion strategy. Upon multivariate analysis, high-risk PE was the only independent risk factor for major bleeding while USAT therapy and intermediate-risk PE were independent predictors of efficacy. Due to the difference in baseline severity of illness, direct comparisons in primary outcomes to each group was not performed. We have described real world usage of both USAT and ST and which patients were likely to receive each therapy at these institutions.
