Comparison of interventions for intermediate to high-risk pulmonary embolism: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Multiple interventions, including catheter-directed therapy (CDT), systemic thrombolysis (ST), surgical embolectomy (SE), and therapeutic anticoagulation (AC) have been used to treat intermediate to high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), but the most effective and safest treatment remains unclear. Our study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety outcomes of each intervention. METHODS We queried PubMed and EMBASE in January 2023 and performed a network meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCT), including high or intermediate-risk PE patients, and comparing AC, CDT, SE, and ST. The primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and major bleeding. The secondary outcomes included long-term mortality (≥6 months), recurrent PE, minor bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS We identified 11 RCTs and 42 observational studies involving 157,454 patients. CDT was associated with lower in-hospital mortality than ST (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.41 [0.31-0.55]), AC (OR [95% CI]: 0.33 [0.20-0.53]), and SE (OR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.39-0.96]). Recurrent PE in CDT was lower than ST (OR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.50-0.87]), AC (OR [95% CI]: 0.36 [0.20-0.66]), and trended lower than SE (OR [95% CI]: 0.71 [0.40-1.26]). Notably, ST had higher major bleeding risks than CDT (OR [95% CI]: 1.51 [1.19-1.91]) and AC (OR [95% CI]: 2.21 [1.53-3.19]). By rankogram analysis, CDT presented the highest p-score in in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and recurrent PE. CONCLUSION In this network meta-analysis of observational studies and RCTs involving patients with intermediate to high-risk PE, CDT was associated with improved mortality outcomes compared to other therapies, without significant additional bleeding risk.

[1]  J. Giri,et al.  Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients With Acute Intermediate-High-risk Pulmonary Embolism: The CANARY Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2022, JAMA cardiology.

[2]  E. Mayo-Wilson,et al.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews , 2021, BMJ.

[3]  C. Weng,et al.  Low-dose urokinase thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism: A retrospective cohort study , 2021, PloS one.

[4]  B. Murray,et al.  Ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis versus systemic anticoagulation alone for submassive pulmonary embolism , 2020, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

[5]  V. Tapson,et al.  How I Do It: The PERT Concept: A Step-by-Step Approach to Managing PE. , 2020, Chest.

[6]  M. Pelletier,et al.  National Outcomes of Surgical Embolectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism. , 2020, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[7]  C. Toma,et al.  Outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. standard medical therapy in patients with acute submassive pulmonary embolism , 2020, Pulmonary circulation.

[8]  M. Humbert,et al.  2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS): supplementary data , 2019 .

[9]  G. Merli,et al.  First year experience of a pulmonary embolism response team with comparisons of outcomes between catheter directed therapy versus standard anticoagulation , 2019, Hospital practice.

[10]  C. Hennemeyer,et al.  Outcomes of Catheter-Directed Therapy Plus Anticoagulation Versus Anticoagulation Alone for Submassive and Massive Pulmonary Embolism. , 2019, The American journal of medicine.

[11]  N. Ozdemir,et al.  Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in High-Risk and Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Meta-Analysis. , 2017, Current vascular pharmacology.

[12]  Salma I. Patel,et al.  Catheter-Directed Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Modern Literature , 2017, Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis.

[13]  L. Dell’Italia,et al.  Catheter-directed treatment for acute pulmonary embolism: Systematic review and single-arm meta-analyses. , 2016, International journal of cardiology.

[14]  M. Hernán,et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[15]  C. Grines,et al.  Utilization of catheter‐directed thrombolysis in pulmonary embolism and outcome difference between systemic thrombolysis and catheter‐directed thrombolysis , 2015, Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions.

[16]  L. Cohn,et al.  Surgical Embolectomy for Acute Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism in a Series of 115 Patients. , 2015, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[17]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[18]  M. Salehi,et al.  Surgical embolectomy versus thrombolytic therapy in the management of acute massive pulmonary embolism: Short and long-term prognosis. , 2015, Heart & lung : the journal of critical care.

[19]  J. Giri,et al.  Thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism and risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage: a meta-analysis. , 2014, JAMA.

[20]  J. Hernández,et al.  Improving adjunctive treatment in pulmonary embolism and fibrinolytic therapy. The role of enoxaparin and weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin , 2009, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

[21]  G. Smith,et al.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.