Objective: Although systemic thrombolysis (ST) is the standard of care in the treatment of high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), large variations in real-world usage exist, including its use to treat intermediate-risk PE. A paucity of data is available to define the outcomes and practice patterns of the ST dose, duration, and treatment of presumed and imaging-confirmed PE.
Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate the real-world practice patterns of ST use in the setting of acute PE (presumed vs imaging-confirmed intermediate- and high-risk PE). Patients who had received tissue plasminogen activator for PE between 2017 and 2019 were included. We compared the baseline clinical characteristics, tissue plasminogen activator practice patterns, and outcomes for patients with confirmed vs presumed PE.
Results: A total of 104 patients had received ST for PE: 52 with confirmed PE and 52 with presumed PE. Significantly more patients who had been treated for presumed PE had experienced cardiac arrest (n = 47; 90%) compared with those with confirmed PE (n = 23; 44%; P < .01). Survival to hospital discharge was 65% for the patients with confirmed PE vs 6% for those with presumed PE (P < .01). The use of ST was contraindicated for 56% of the patients with confirmed PE, with major bleeding in 26% but no intracranial hemorrhage.
Conclusions: The in-hospital mortality of patients with confirmed acute PE has remained high (35%) in contemporary practice for those treated with ST. A large proportion of these patients had had contraindications to ST, and the rates of major bleeding were significant. Those with confirmed PE had had a higher survival rate compared with those with presumed PE, including those with cardiac arrest. This observation suggests a limited role for empiric thrombolysis in cardiac arrest situations.
Keywords: Cardiac arrest; High risk; Intermediate risk; Pulmonary embolism; Thrombolysis; tPA.
Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.