No abstract

Both catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) are novel treatment modalities for patients presenting with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The objective of this study was to compare clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for patients undergoing either treatment modality. We retrospectively studied 70 consecutive patients treated with either CDT or USAT over 3 years at a multicenter health system. The primary clinical efficacy endpoint was right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) reduction post-procedurally. Safety endpoints were mortality and bleeding incidents based on Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Arteries (GUSTO) criteria. Long-term QOL was assessed using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) via phone interview. Thirty-seven patients (53%) in our study underwent USAT and 33 (47%) patients were treated with conventional CDT. Among all patients studied, 96% had echocardiographic evidence for right ventricular strain on admission. Mean RVSP decreased by 18 ± 13 mmHg in the USAT group post-procedurally as compared to 14 ± 16 mmHg in the CDT group, without significant difference between groups (p = 0.31). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were largely identical between USAT and CDT groups (USAT: 3%; CDT: 0%; p = 0.09). There was no death in either group during admission. At long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in QOL between both treatment modalities in all eight functional domains of SF-36. Our retrospective study demonstrated using USAT over conventional CDT for acute submassive or massive PE did not yield additional clinical, safety, or long-term QOL benefit.

Various innovative techniques to recanalize the vein and establish alternate venous access have been pioneered over the past few years. A collaborative team of electrophysiologists and vascular specialists strategically integrate the patient's vascular disease into the planning of electrophysiology procedures. When vascular complications occur after device implantation, the same team effectively manages both the resulting vascular sequelae and related cardiac rhythm device challenges. This review will outline the various vascular challenges related to device therapy and offer an effective strategy for their management.

No abstract

Background:Intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is a common disease that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; however, a standardized treatment protocol is not well-established.Areas of Uncertainty:Treatments available for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolisms include anticoagulation, systemic thrombolytics, catheter-directed therapies, surgical embolectomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Despite these options, there is no clear consensus on the optimal indication and timing of these interventions.Therapeutic Advances:Anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of treatment for pulmonary embolism; however, over the past 2 decades, there have been advances in the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed therapies. For massive pulmonary embolism, systemic thrombolytics and, sometimes, surgical thrombectomy are considered first-line treatments. Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism are at high risk of clinical deterioration; however, it is unclear whether anticoagulation alone is sufficient. The optimal treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism in the setting of hemodynamic stability with right heart strain present is not well-defined. Therapies such as catheter-directed thrombolysis and suction thrombectomy are being investigated given their potential to offload right ventricular strain. Several studies have recently evaluated catheter-directed thrombolysis and embolectomies and demonstrated the efficacy and safety of these interventions. Here, we review the literature on the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolisms and the evidence behind those interventions.Conclusions:There are many treatments available in the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Although the current literature does not favor 1 treatment as superior, multiple studies have shown growing data to support catheter-directed therapies as potential options for these patients. Multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams remain a key feature in improving the selection of advanced therapies and optimization of care.