Thrombolysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: A meta-analysis.
Thromb Res. 2014 Oct 13;134(6):1265-1271
Authors: Riera-Mestre A, Becattini C, Giustozzi M, Agnelli G
INTRODUCTION: The role of thrombolysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the effect of thrombolysis in these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized studies comparing thrombolysis and heparin for the initial treatment of hemodynamically stable PE patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. NNH to cause a major bleeding (MB) or an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and NNT to avoid one death were also calculated.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (1833 patients) were included seven with rt-PA, three with tenecteplase and one with urokinase. Patients randomized to thrombolysis had a significant increased risk for MB (5.9% vs 1.9%; OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.68-4.76, I(2) 18.7%) and an increased risk for ICH (1.74% versus 0.6%; OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.98-5.71, I(2) 0%) and for fatal bleeding (1.3% versus 0.54%; OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.73-4.61, I(2) 0%). A not-significant reduction for all-cause death (1.74% vs 2.51%; OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37-1.26, I(2) 0%) and a significant reduction for recurrent PE (1.1% vs 2.5%; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.92, I(2) 0%) in favor of thrombolysis compared with heparin was found. NNH to cause a MB or an ICH were 27 and 91 patients, respectively. NNT to avoid one death was 125 patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to increased risk for MB and ICH with no evidence of reduction in mortality, thrombolysis should not be used for most normotensive PE patients.
PMID: 25457585 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]