单纯抗凝与大口径机械取栓治疗急性中危肺栓塞。

IF 1.6 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Robert S Zhang, Eugene Yuriditsky, Peter Zhang, Hannah P Truong, Yuhe Xia, Muhammad H Maqsood, Allison A Greco, Vikramjit Mukherjee, Radu Postelnicu, Nancy E Amoroso, Thomas S Maldonado, Carlos L Alviar, James M Horowitz, Sripal Bangalore
{"title":"单纯抗凝与大口径机械取栓治疗急性中危肺栓塞。","authors":"Robert S Zhang, Eugene Yuriditsky, Peter Zhang, Hannah P Truong, Yuhe Xia, Muhammad H Maqsood, Allison A Greco, Vikramjit Mukherjee, Radu Postelnicu, Nancy E Amoroso, Thomas S Maldonado, Carlos L Alviar, James M Horowitz, Sripal Bangalore","doi":"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.03.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) have outcomes worse than uncomplicated ST elevation myocardial infarction. Yet, no large-scale study has compared the outcomes of large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) with anticoagulation alone (AC). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes among patients receiving LBMT vs AC alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a two-center retrospective study that included patients with intermediate-risk PE from October 2016 - October 2023 from the institution's Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) database. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest or hemodynamic decompensation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates; Kaplan Meir curves and IPTW multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the relationship between treatment groups and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 273 patients included in the analysis, 192 (70 %) patients received AC alone and 81 (30 %) patients received LBMT and AC. A total of 30 (10.9 %) patients experienced the primary composite outcome over a median follow-up of 30 days. The primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the group that received LBMT compared to those on AC alone (1.2 % vs 15.1 %, log-rank p < 0.001; adjusted HR: 0.02; 95 % CI: 0.002-0.17, p < 0.001) driven by a lower rate of 30-day all-cause mortality (0 % vs 7.3 %, log-rank p = 0.01), resuscitated cardiac arrest (0 % vs 6.8 %, log-rank p = 0.016) and new or worsening hemodynamic instability (4 % vs 11.1 %, log-rank p = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this largest cohort to date comparing LBMT versus AC alone in acute intermediate-risk PE, LBMT had a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome including a lower rate of all-cause mortality when compared to AC alone. Ongoing randomized trials will test these associations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47657,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anticoagulation alone versus large-bore mechanical thrombectomy in acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.\",\"authors\":\"Robert S Zhang, Eugene Yuriditsky, Peter Zhang, Hannah P Truong, Yuhe Xia, Muhammad H Maqsood, Allison A Greco, Vikramjit Mukherjee, Radu Postelnicu, Nancy E Amoroso, Thomas S Maldonado, Carlos L Alviar, James M Horowitz, Sripal Bangalore\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.carrev.2025.03.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) have outcomes worse than uncomplicated ST elevation myocardial infarction. Yet, no large-scale study has compared the outcomes of large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) with anticoagulation alone (AC). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes among patients receiving LBMT vs AC alone.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a two-center retrospective study that included patients with intermediate-risk PE from October 2016 - October 2023 from the institution's Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) database. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest or hemodynamic decompensation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates; Kaplan Meir curves and IPTW multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the relationship between treatment groups and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 273 patients included in the analysis, 192 (70 %) patients received AC alone and 81 (30 %) patients received LBMT and AC. A total of 30 (10.9 %) patients experienced the primary composite outcome over a median follow-up of 30 days. The primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the group that received LBMT compared to those on AC alone (1.2 % vs 15.1 %, log-rank p < 0.001; adjusted HR: 0.02; 95 % CI: 0.002-0.17, p < 0.001) driven by a lower rate of 30-day all-cause mortality (0 % vs 7.3 %, log-rank p = 0.01), resuscitated cardiac arrest (0 % vs 6.8 %, log-rank p = 0.016) and new or worsening hemodynamic instability (4 % vs 11.1 %, log-rank p = 0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this largest cohort to date comparing LBMT versus AC alone in acute intermediate-risk PE, LBMT had a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome including a lower rate of all-cause mortality when compared to AC alone. Ongoing randomized trials will test these associations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.03.023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2025.03.023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:中危性肺栓塞(PE)患者的预后比单纯ST段抬高型心肌梗死更差。然而,没有大规模的研究比较大口径机械取栓(LBMT)和单独抗凝(AC)的结果。本研究的目的是比较接受LBMT和单独AC治疗的患者的临床结果。方法:这是一项双中心回顾性研究,纳入了2016年10月至2023年10月来自该机构肺栓塞反应小组(PERT)数据库的中度风险PE患者。主要终点是30天死亡率、复苏的心脏骤停或血流动力学失代偿的综合结果。采用处理加权逆概率法(Inverse probability of treatment weighting, IPTW)平衡协变量;Kaplan Meir曲线和IPTW多变量Cox回归评估治疗组与结果的关系。结果:在纳入分析的273例患者中,192例(70%)患者单独接受AC治疗,81例(30%)患者同时接受LBMT和AC治疗。在中位随访30天期间,共有30例(10.9%)患者出现了主要的复合结局。结论:在这个迄今为止最大的队列中,比较LBMT与AC单独治疗急性中危险PE, LBMT的主要综合结果率显著低于AC单独治疗组(1.2% vs 15.1%,对数等级p), LBMT的主要综合结果率显著低于AC单独治疗组,包括更低的全因死亡率。正在进行的随机试验将检验这些关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anticoagulation alone versus large-bore mechanical thrombectomy in acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.

Background: Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) have outcomes worse than uncomplicated ST elevation myocardial infarction. Yet, no large-scale study has compared the outcomes of large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) with anticoagulation alone (AC). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes among patients receiving LBMT vs AC alone.

Methods: This was a two-center retrospective study that included patients with intermediate-risk PE from October 2016 - October 2023 from the institution's Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) database. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest or hemodynamic decompensation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates; Kaplan Meir curves and IPTW multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the relationship between treatment groups and outcomes.

Results: Of the 273 patients included in the analysis, 192 (70 %) patients received AC alone and 81 (30 %) patients received LBMT and AC. A total of 30 (10.9 %) patients experienced the primary composite outcome over a median follow-up of 30 days. The primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the group that received LBMT compared to those on AC alone (1.2 % vs 15.1 %, log-rank p < 0.001; adjusted HR: 0.02; 95 % CI: 0.002-0.17, p < 0.001) driven by a lower rate of 30-day all-cause mortality (0 % vs 7.3 %, log-rank p = 0.01), resuscitated cardiac arrest (0 % vs 6.8 %, log-rank p = 0.016) and new or worsening hemodynamic instability (4 % vs 11.1 %, log-rank p = 0.007).

Conclusion: In this largest cohort to date comparing LBMT versus AC alone in acute intermediate-risk PE, LBMT had a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome including a lower rate of all-cause mortality when compared to AC alone. Ongoing randomized trials will test these associations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine
Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
687
审稿时长
36 days
期刊介绍: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine (CRM) is an international and multidisciplinary journal that publishes original laboratory and clinical investigations related to revascularization therapies in cardiovascular medicine. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine publishes articles related to preclinical work and molecular interventions, including angiogenesis, cell therapy, pharmacological interventions, restenosis management, and prevention, including experiments conducted in human subjects, in laboratory animals, and in vitro. Specific areas of interest include percutaneous angioplasty in coronary and peripheral arteries, intervention in structural heart disease, cardiovascular surgery, etc.
×
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