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

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Luise Antonia Mentzel, Parham Shahidi, Stephan Blazek, Dmitry Sulimov, Holger Thiele, Karl Fengler
{"title":"Clinical Outcome Using Different Catheter Interventional Treatment Modalities in High-Risk Pulmonary Artery Embolism.","authors":"Luise Antonia Mentzel, Parham Shahidi, Stephan Blazek, Dmitry Sulimov, Holger Thiele, Karl Fengler","doi":"10.3390/jcdd11070228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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%, <i>p</i> = 0.07 and 0.01, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11277428/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070228","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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: 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: 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%, p = 0.07 and 0.01, respectively).

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.

高风险肺动脉栓塞采用不同导管介入治疗模式的临床效果
背景:对于高危肺动脉栓塞(PE)患者来说,导管导向疗法是全身溶栓或抗凝治疗之外的另一种可行治疗方案。目前,已有多种设备被证明在低风险情况下安全有效。然而,几乎没有数据可以比较它们在高风险 PE 中的疗效:我们对接受导管介入治疗的高危 PE 患者进行了一项回顾性单中心研究。将接受大口径导管血栓切除术的患者与接受其他治疗方式的患者进行比较:在纳入的 20 名患者中,9 人接受了大口径导管血栓切除术,11 人接受了其他介入治疗。虽然两组患者的基线特征相当,但与其他治疗方式相比,大孔血栓切除术的围手术期死亡率和院内死亡率明显较低(分别为0对55%和33对82%,P=0.07和0.01):在这项小型回顾性研究中,与其他治疗方式相比,大孔血栓切除术的死亡率较低。未来需要进行前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease
Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
381
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信