Comparison of safety and efficacy of ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis vs. standard catheter-directed thrombolysis for the management of acute pulmonary embolism - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (SCDT) and Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) are used in intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). SCDT uses low-dose thrombolytic agents, minimizing bleeding risk. USAT adds acoustic energy to improve fibrin breakdown and thrombolytic penetration. A systematic literature search spanning PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from inception to 17 June 2024) was conducted to retrieve studies comparing USAT to SCDT for managing acute PE. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane tools for randomized and non-randomized trials. Odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) were pooled using random effects models. Statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.2.2. 11 studies with 37,398 patients (8,762: USAT and 28,636: SCDT) were included. The mean reduction in right ventricular to left ventricular diameter ratio was lower for USAT (MD: -0.12; 95% CI: -0.19, -0.06) compared to SCDT. There was no statistically significant difference between USAT and SCDT for odds of in-hospital mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, bleeding requiring transfusion or for means of hospital or ICU length of stay, or reduction in pulmonary artery pressures. Safety or efficacy of USAT is not superior to SCDT in patients with acute PE. Results were limited due to variable infusion protocol across studies and heterogeneity of results among studies. Large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to corroborate these findings.