Suppr超能文献

手术取栓和导管介入治疗急性肺栓塞:当代系统评价。

Surgical pulmonary embolectomy and catheter-based therapies for acute pulmonary embolism: A contemporary systematic review.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas-Houston McGovern Medical School and Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Houston, Tex.

Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas-Houston McGovern Medical School and Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Houston, Tex; Department of Advanced Cardiopulmonary Therapies and Transplantation, University of Texas-Houston McGovern Medical School and Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, Houston, Tex.

出版信息

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Dec;156(6):2155-2167. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.05.085. Epub 2018 Jun 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Mortality in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is believed to be principally due to the subgroup of PEs that are massive. Systemic thrombolysis is the therapeutic mainstay for acute massive PE, despite evidence suggesting limited survival benefits. Both catheter-based therapies (CBT) and surgical pulmonary embolectomy (SE) are well-accepted alternatives to treat acute PE. However, the comparative effectiveness of these approaches is difficult to study. We conducted a systematic review of CBT and SE for acute PE.

METHODS

The PubMed database was queried for CBT- and SE-related publications between January 1998 and June 2017. A minimum of 10 patients undergoing intervention(s) was required for inclusion, and studies must not have excluded patients with massive PE. End points examined included hospital mortality, and additionally for CBT, procedural success rate.

RESULTS

A total of 75 studies (41 of CBT, 34 of SE) were identified, with 1650 patients undergoing CBT and 1101 undergoing SE. Patients undergoing SE were more critically ill than those undergoing CBT (massive PE, 545 out of 975 [55.9%] for SE vs 742 out of 1553 [47.8%] for CBT). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was required in 217 out of 1015 patients undergoing SE (21.4%) versus 38 out of 983 patients undergoing CBT (4.0%). The hospital mortality of SE was 14.0%, versus 5.6% for CBT, in the entire patient group. However, the hospital mortality of SE in patients with pre-SE CPR was 46.3%, whereas it was 6.8% in those patients without pre-SE CPR. Although CPR was associated with an increased risk of mortality both for CBT and SE, it accounted for all of the mortality effect on SE (the adjusted odds ratio for CPR in a random effects model with treatment considered was 9.79 (95% confidence interval, 4.98-19.17; P < .0001). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality for SE relative to CBT was 1.36 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-2.32; P = .84). Moreover, CBT was associated with a procedural failure rate of 8.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Both CBT and SE were associated with satisfactory published outcomes. SE is associated with greater absolute postprocedure mortality than CBT, but has been undertaken in more critically ill populations. The markedly higher incidence of CPR in SE accounts for the differential mortality between the patients undergoing SE and those undergoing CBT. Decision making with respect to best therapy must take into account potential needs for periprocedure artificial mechanical right ventricle and lung support, institutional experience and outcomes, anticipated therapeutic efficacy and benefit, and approach-specific risks.

摘要

目的

急性肺栓塞(PE)的死亡率主要归因于大面积 PE 亚组。尽管有证据表明生存获益有限,但全身溶栓仍然是急性大面积 PE 的主要治疗方法。导管溶栓(CBT)和肺动脉血栓切除术(SE)都是治疗急性 PE 的公认替代方法。然而,这些方法的比较效果很难研究。我们对 CBT 和 SE 治疗急性 PE 进行了系统评价。

方法

1998 年 1 月至 2017 年 6 月,在 PubMed 数据库中查询与 CBT 和 SE 相关的出版物。纳入标准为至少有 10 例患者接受干预,且研究不得排除大面积 PE 患者。观察终点包括院内死亡率,以及 CBT 的额外手术成功率。

结果

共确定了 75 项研究(41 项为 CBT,34 项为 SE),其中 1650 例患者接受 CBT,1101 例患者接受 SE。接受 SE 的患者比接受 CBT 的患者病情更危急(SE 中 975 例中有 545 例为大面积 PE [55.9%],而 CBT 中 1553 例中有 742 例 [47.8%])。心肺复苏(CPR)在 1015 例接受 SE 的患者中需要 217 例(21.4%),而在 983 例接受 CBT 的患者中需要 38 例(4.0%)。整个患者组中,SE 的院内死亡率为 14.0%,CBT 为 5.6%。然而,SE 中接受 SE 前 CPR 的患者的院内死亡率为 46.3%,而未接受 SE 前 CPR 的患者的死亡率为 6.8%。尽管 CPR 增加了 CBT 和 SE 的死亡率风险,但它解释了 SE 死亡率的全部影响(在考虑治疗的随机效应模型中,CPR 的调整后的优势比为 9.79(95%置信区间,4.98-19.17;P<0.0001)。SE 与 CBT 相比,死亡率的调整后优势比为 1.36(95%置信区间,0.80-2.32;P=0.84)。此外,CBT 的手术失败率为 8.3%。

结论

CBT 和 SE 均与满意的发表结果相关。SE 与 CBT 相比,术后绝对死亡率更高,但在更危重的人群中进行。SE 中 CPR 的发生率明显更高,这解释了接受 SE 和 CBT 治疗的患者之间的死亡率差异。在决定最佳治疗方法时,必须考虑到围手术期人工机械右心室和肺支持的潜在需求、机构经验和结果、预期的治疗效果和获益以及方法特异性风险。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验