Clinical Outcome Using Different Catheter Interventional Treatment Modalities in High-Risk Pulmonary Artery Embolism.

catheter embolectomy catheter-directed therapy high-risk PE intensive care large-bore obstructive shock pulmonary artery embolism thrombectomy

Journal

Journal of cardiovascular development and disease
ISSN: 2308-3425
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Dev Dis
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101651414

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 28 05 2024
revised: 16 07 2024
accepted: 17 07 2024
medline: 26 7 2024
pubmed: 26 7 2024
entrez: 26 7 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

For patients with high-risk pulmonary artery embolism (PE), catheter-directed therapies pose a viable alternative treatment option to systemic thrombolysis or anticoagulation. Right now, there are multiple devices available which have been proven to be safe and effective in lower-risk settings. There is, however, little data comparing their efficacies in high-risk PE. We performed a retrospective, single-center study on patients with high-risk PE undergoing catheter interventional treatment. Patients receiving large-bore catheter thrombectomy were compared to patients receiving alternative treatment forms. Of the 20 patients included, 9 received large-bore thrombectomy, and 11 received alternative interventional treatments. While the baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, periprocedural and in-hospital mortality tended to be significantly lower with large-bore thrombectomy when compared to other treatment forms (0 vs. 55% and 33 vs. 82%, In this small, retrospective study, large-bore thrombectomy was associated with lower mortality as compared to alternative treatment forms. Future prospective research is needed to corroborate these findings.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
For patients with high-risk pulmonary artery embolism (PE), catheter-directed therapies pose a viable alternative treatment option to systemic thrombolysis or anticoagulation. Right now, there are multiple devices available which have been proven to be safe and effective in lower-risk settings. There is, however, little data comparing their efficacies in high-risk PE.
METHODS METHODS
We performed a retrospective, single-center study on patients with high-risk PE undergoing catheter interventional treatment. Patients receiving large-bore catheter thrombectomy were compared to patients receiving alternative treatment forms.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 20 patients included, 9 received large-bore thrombectomy, and 11 received alternative interventional treatments. While the baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, periprocedural and in-hospital mortality tended to be significantly lower with large-bore thrombectomy when compared to other treatment forms (0 vs. 55% and 33 vs. 82%,
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In this small, retrospective study, large-bore thrombectomy was associated with lower mortality as compared to alternative treatment forms. Future prospective research is needed to corroborate these findings.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39057648
pii: jcdd11070228
doi: 10.3390/jcdd11070228
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Auteurs

Luise Antonia Mentzel (LA)

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Struempellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Parham Shahidi (P)

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Struempellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Stephan Blazek (S)

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Struempellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Dmitry Sulimov (D)

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Struempellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Holger Thiele (H)

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Struempellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Karl Fengler (K)

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig, Struempellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Classifications MeSH