Outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus systemic thrombolysis in the treatment of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.
10.26599/1671-5411.2023.06.005
- Author:
Huang-Tai MIAO
1
;
Ying LIANG
2
;
Xiao-Ying LI
3
;
Xiao WANG
1
;
Hui-Juan ZUO
4
;
Zhe-Chun ZENG
4
;
Shao-Ping NIE
1
Author Information
1. Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical Universisty, Beijing, China.
2. Emergency & Critical Care Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
3. Department of Health Care for Cadres, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing, China.
4. Department of Clinical & Community Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Beijing Institute of Heart Lung and Blood Vessel Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- From:
Journal of Geriatric Cardiology
2023;20(6):459-468
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus systemic thrombolysis (ST) in the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE).
METHODS:The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched to collect the literature on the comparison of the results of CDT and ST in the treatment of PE from the beginning of their records to May 2020, and meta-analysis was performed by STATA software (version 15.1). Using standardized data-collection forms, the authors screened the studies and independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Cohort studies that examined the following results were included in the current study: in-hospital mortality, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, intracranial hemorrhage rate, the incidence of shock, and hospital length of stay.
RESULTS:A total of eight articles, with 13,242 participants, involving 3962 participants in the CDT group and 9280 participants in the ST group were included. CDT compared with ST in the treatment of PE can significantly affect in-hospital mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56, P < 0.05], all-cause bleeding rate (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.39, P = 0.012), gastrointestinal bleeding rate (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.13-1.81, P = 0.003), the incidence of shock (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37-0.57, P < 0.05), and hospital length of stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07-0.25, P < 0.05]. However, there was no significant effect on intracranial hemorrhage rate in patients with PE (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47-1.03, P = 0.070).
CONCLUSIONS:CDT is a viable alternative to ST in the treatment of PE, as it can significantly reduce in-hospital mortality rate, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, and incidence of shock. However, CDT may prolong hospital length of stay to a certain extent. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CDT and ST in the treatment of acute PE and other clinical outcomes.
