BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options for intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) include anticoagulation, systemic thrombolysis and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT); however, the role of CDT remains controversial. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of CDT with other therapeutic options using network meta-analysis.
METHODS: We searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Library from inception to Oct. 18, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared therapeutic options for PE, including anticoagulation, systemic thrombolysis and CDT among patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE. The efficacy outcome was in-hospital death. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage and minor bleeding.
RESULTS: We included data from 44 studies, representing 20 006 patients. Compared with systemic thrombolysis, CDT was associated with a decreased risk of death (odd ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.57), intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.64), major bleeding (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70) and blood transfusion (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.77). However, no difference in minor bleeding was observed between the 2 therapeutic options (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66-1.87). Compared with anticoagulation, CDT was also associated with decreased risk of death (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.52), with no increased risk of intracerebral hemorrhage (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.63-2.79) or major bleeding (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.88-1.75).
INTERPRETATION: With moderate certainty of evidence, the risk of death and major bleeding complications was lower with CDT than with systemic thrombolysis. Compared with anticoagulation, CDT was associated with a probable lower risk of death and a similar risk of intracerebral hemorrhage, with moderate certainty of evidence. Although these findings are largely based on observational data, CDT may be considered as a first-line therapy in patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42020182163.
| Discipline Area | Score |
|---|---|
| Physician |  |
Physician rater
Robust analysis but potentially overstated conclusions.The review concludes that CDT is better than systemic thrombolysis for intermediate or high-risk PE, but this is based on observational studies. Only 1 small RCT (n=52) comparing CDT and systemic thrombolysis was included.
Physician rater
Overall, interesting data re safety profile. Including observational studies with inadequate adjusting of confounders, however, threatens the validity of the findings, especially related to efficacy.
Physician rater
Good metanalysis that could orient treatment where this technology is readily available.
, McMaster University