Perioperative and intermediate outcomes of patients with pulmonary embolism undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis vs percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy
Junji Tsukagoshi,Benjamin Wick,Abbas Karim,Kamil Khanipov,Mitchell W Cox
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2024.101958
Abstract:Objective: Thrombolytic therapy has been a mainstay of treatment for massive or submassive pulmonary embolism (PE), a common and highly morbid pathology. New percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy (PMT) devices have recently become widely available and have been used increasingly for the treatment of acute PE, but evidence demonstrating its efficacy over standard catheter-directed lytic protocol remains limited. Methods: Using TriNetX Data Network, a global federated database of >250 million patients, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients from January 2017 to August 2023 with a diagnosis of PE, treated with either PMT or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). Eligible patients were 1:1 propensity score-matched for preoperative covariates including demographics and comorbidities. We calculated and compared the 30-day outcomes of all-cause mortality, bleeding complications (blood transfusion, gastrointestinal bleed, and intracranial hemorrhage), diagnosis of acute respiratory failure (RF), myocardial infarction (MI), and pulmonary hypertension (PH) using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Also, the 5-year outcomes of all-cause mortality, a composite outcome of chronic PH (chronic PE, chronic cor pulmonale, chronic thromboembolic PH), right heart failure (RHF), RF, and emergency department visits, were compared using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. Results: We identified 2978 patients treated with PMT and 1137 patients treated with CDT. After matching, we compared 1102 patients in each cohort. For 30-day outcomes, all-cause mortality, acute RF, and blood transfusion were similar between the two groups. However, compared with CDT, PMT was associated with a better safety profile, including lower bleeding risk for both ICH (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.890) and gastrointestinal bleed (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.63). PMT also demonstrated better immediate functional outcomes, with less PH (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.41-0.68) and MI (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.76). At 5 years, the all-cause mortality and RF for both procedures were similar, but PMT was associated with lower rates of chronic PH (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.90), RHF (HR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.37-0.65), and emergency department visits (348 for PMT vs 426 for CDT; P < .01). Conclusions: In patients undergoing catheter-based therapy for PE, PMT has an improved procedural safety profile vs CDT and results in significantly fewer 30-day postoperative complications, with fewer bleeding events, and is also associated with fewer periprocedural MIs and less acute PH. Perhaps, more important, PMT also demonstrated improved long-term outcomes with significantly fewer chronic PH and RHF diagnoses with fewer emergency department visits.