J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2022 Jun 14:S2213-333X(22)00255-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2022.04.014. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: While systemic thrombolysis (ST) is standard of care in treatment of high-risk pulmonary embolism, large variation in real world usage exists, including use in intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. There is a paucity of data defining the outcomes, practice patterns of ST dose, duration, and treatment in presumed or imaging confirmed pulmonary embolism.
METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study evaluating real world practice patterns of systemic thrombolysis use in the setting of acute pulmonary embolism (presumed versus imaging confirmed intermediate- and high-risk). Patients who received tissue plasminogen activator for pulmonary embolism between 2017 and 2019 were included. We compared baseline clinical characteristics, tissue plasminogen activator practice patterns, and outcomes in those with confirmed versus presumed pulmonary embolism.
RESULTS: 104 patients received systemic thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism; 52 patients had confirmed pulmonary embolism and 52 patients had presumed pulmonary embolism. Significantly more patients treated for presumed pulmonary embolism experienced cardiac arrest (n=47, 90%) than those with confirmed pulmonary embolism (n=23, 44%, p<0.01). Survival to hospital discharge was 65% in patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism versus 6% for those with presumed pulmonary embolism (p<0.01). Systemic thrombolysis was contraindicated in 56% of patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism, with major bleeding in 26% but no intracranial hemorrhage.
CONCLUSIONS: The in-hospital mortality of confirmed acute pulmonary embolism remains high (35%) in contemporary practice in those treated with systemic thrombolysis. A large proportion of these patients had contraindications to systemic thrombolysis and major bleeding rates were significant. Confirmed pulmonary embolism had higher survival rate compared to presumed, including those with cardiac arrest. This observation suggests a limited role of empiric thrombolysis in cardiac arrest situations.
PMID:35714905 | DOI:10.1016/j.jvsv.2022.04.014