Jay Giri

IMPORTANCE: Thrombolytic therapy may be beneficial in the treatment of some patients with pulmonary embolism. To date, no analysis has had adequate statistical power to determine whether thrombolytic therapy is associated with improved survival, compared with conventional anticoagulation. OBJECTIVE: To determine mortality benefits and bleeding risks associated with thrombolytic therapy compared with anticoagulation in acute pulmonary embolism, including the subset of hemodynamically stable patients with right ventricular dysfunction (intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism). DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception through April 10, 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials comparing thrombolytic therapy vs anticoagulant therapy in pulmonary embolism patients. Sixteen trials comprising 2115 individuals were identified. Eight trials comprising 1775 patients specified inclusion of patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted trial-level data including number of patients, patient characteristics, duration of follow-up, and outcomes. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were risk of recurrent embolism and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Peto odds ratio (OR) estimates and associated 95% CIs were calculated using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Use of thrombolytics was associated with lower all-cause mortality (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.88; 2.17% [23/1061] vs 3.89% [41/1054] with anticoagulants; number needed to treat [NNT] = 59) and greater risks of major bleeding (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.91-3.91; 9.24% [98/1061] vs 3.42% [36/1054]; number needed to harm [NNH] = 18) and ICH (OR, 4.63; 95% CI, 1.78-12.04; 1.46% [15/1024] vs 0.19% [2/1019]; NNH = 78). Major bleeding was not significantly increased in patients 65 years and younger (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.50-3.14). Thrombolysis was associated with a lower risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74; 1.17% [12/1024] vs 3.04% [31/1019]; NNT = 54). In intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism trials, thrombolysis was associated with lower mortality (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92) and more major bleeding events (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 2.07-4.92). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with pulmonary embolism, including those who were hemodynamically stable with right ventricular dysfunction, thrombolytic therapy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality and increased risks of major bleeding and ICH. However, findings may not apply to patients with pulmonary embolism who are hemodynamically stable without right ventricular dysfunction.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The technological landscape for management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE is rapidly evolving. Two interventional devices using pharmacomechanical means to recanalize the pulmonary arteries have recently been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing, and several others are in various stages of development. The purpose of this document is to clarify the current state of endovascular interventional therapy for acute PE and to provide considerations for evidence development for new devices that will define which patients with PE would derive the greatest net benefit from their use in various clinical settings. First, definitions and limitations of commonly used risk stratification tools for PE are reviewed. An adjudication of risks and benefits of available interventional therapies for PE follows. Next, considerations for optimal future evidence development in this field are presented in the context of the current US regulatory framework. Finally, the document concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons of the rapidly expanding PE response team model of care delivery.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There have been many advances in the field of PE in the last few years, requiring a careful assessment of their impact on patient care. However, variations in recommendations by different clinical guidelines, as well as lack of robust clinical trials, make clinical decisions challenging. The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium is an international association created to advance the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with PE. In this consensus practice document, we provide a comprehensive review of the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE, including both clinical data and consensus opinion to provide guidance for clinicians caring for these patients.