These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (USAT) versus standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of pulmonary embolism: A retrospective analysis.
    Author: Rothschild DP, Goldstein JA, Ciacci J, Bowers TR.
    Journal: Vasc Med; 2019 Jun; 24(3):234-240. PubMed ID: 30915912.
    Abstract:
    Ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (USAT) is advocated in pulmonary embolism (PE) based on the hypothesis that adjunctive ultrasound provides superior clinical efficacy compared to standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). This retrospective study was designed to compare outcomes between the two modalities. We analyzed patients with computed tomography-diagnosed PE at our institution treated with either USAT or standard CDT. Efficacy parameters assessed included invasive pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP; pre- and 24 hours post-treatment), non-invasive right-to-left ventricle (RV/LV) ratio (pre- and post-treatment), and general clinical outcomes (length-of-stay, significant bleeding, and mortality). We analyzed 98 cases (62 USAT and 36 CDT), in whom massive PE was diagnosed in 7%, intermediate/high risk in 81%, and intermediate/low risk in 12%. Overall, 92% had bilateral clot and 40% saddle embolus. At 24 hours, PASP decreased similarly in both groups (CDT Δ14.7 mmHg, USAT Δ10.8 mmHg; p = 0.14). Post-treatment, CDT showed similar improvement in the RV/LV ratio (CDT Δ0.58 vs USAT Δ0.45; p = 0.07), despite the baseline ratio being greater in the CDT group, indicating more severe RV strain (1.56 ± 0.36 vs 1.40 ± 0.29; p = 0.01). Intensive care unit and hospital length-of-stays were similar in both groups. A trend toward lesser significant bleeding rates in the CDT group (8.3% vs 12.9%, p = 0.74) as well as improved survival-to-discharge (97.2% vs 91.9%, p = 0.66) was observed. Compared to USAT, standard CDT achieves similar beneficial effects on hemodynamics, RV/LV ratios, and clinical outcomes. These observations suggest that salutary clinical results may be achieved without the need for very expensive devices.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]