Background Recent in vitro and clinical studies have shown that ultrasound-accelerated catheter-directed thrombolysis (USACDT) can accelerate thrombolysis. Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of USACDT with conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with deep vein thrombosis. Methods A systematic search of the following electronic databases was performed from their dates of inception to 20 June 2020: MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. All randomized controlled trials that directly compared the complications and efficacy of USACDT and conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with deep vein thrombosis were identified. The statistical analysis was performed using comprehensive meta-analysis software. Results Finally, 18 studies with a total of 597 participants were included in our meta-analysis according to the eligibility criteria. Pooled proportion of USACDT success in patients with deep vein thrombosis was 87.8% (18 studies; 95% CI: 83.1–91.3). Success rate was significantly higher in USACDT treatment than in conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis treatment (seven studies; OR: 2.96; 95% CI: 1.69–5.16; P < 0.01)). Although the mean infusion time was higher in catheter-directed thrombolysis treatment compared to USACDT treatment, this difference was not statistically significant (three studies; MD: –1.46; 95% CI: –3.25–0.32; P = 0.10). Moreover, pooled rate of complications was lower in USACDT than catheter-directed thrombolysis which was not statistically significant (seven studies; OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.13–1.76; P = 0.27). Conclusion This meta-analysis revealed that USACDT significantly increased the success rate of thrombolysis compared to conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis. Furthermore, USACDT was associated with lower rate of complication and infusion time. Taken together, these findings confirm the superiority of this novel intervention over conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis in treatment of patients with deep vein thrombosis.

Background Acute submassive a massive pulmonary embolism are known as leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in emergency departments. Choosing the optimal type of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of pulmonary embolism presents a quandary to the practitioners. To the best of our knowledge, there is no meta-analysis comparing superiority of conventional CDT and ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis (USACDT). Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile. Methods A systematic literature search of previous published studies comparing conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile was carried out in the electronic databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception to December 2021. Data were analyzed by comprehensive meta-analysis software (CMA, version 3). Results The meta-analysis included nine studies with a total of 705 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that there is no significant difference between two groups with respect to pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (SMD: −0.084; 95% CI: −0.287 to 0.12; p: 0.41), RV/LV (SMD: −0.003; 95% CI: −0.277 to 0.270; p: 0.98), and Miller score (SMD: −0.345; 95% CI: −1.376 to 0.686; p: 0.51). Similarly, we found no statistically significant differences between two groups regarding major and minor bleeding ( p > .05). Conclusion Our meta-analysis showed that when compared with USACDT, conventional CDT provides similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes or safety for treatment of pulmonary embolism without the need for very expensive technologies. However, randomized clinical trials are required to further investigate cost-effectiveness of USACDT in comparison with conventional CDT.

No abstract