Wahood Waseem, Sista Akhilesh K, Paul Jonathan D, Ahmed Osman
Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/waseemwahood.
Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2023 Jan;34(1):116-123.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2022.09.017. Epub 2022 Sep 24.
To compare 30-day readmission and in-hospital outcomes from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) for catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus systemic intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) as treatments for acute submassive or massive pulmonary embolism (PE).
The NRD was queried from 2016 to 2019 for adult patients with nonseptic acute PE who underwent IVT or CDT. Massive PE was distinguished from submassive PE if patients had concurrent International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) codes corresponding to mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or shock. Propensity score-matched analysis was conducted to infer the association of CDT versus IVT in unplanned 30-day readmissions, nonroutine discharge, gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). These results are demonstrated as average treatment effects (ATEs) of IVT compared with those of CDT.
A total of 37,116 patients with acute PE were studied; 18,702 (50.3%) underwent CDT, and 18,414 (49.7%) underwent IVT. A total of 2,083 (11.1%) and 3,423 (18.6%) were massive PEs in the 2 groups, respectively (P < .001). The ATE of IVT was higher than that of CDT regarding unplanned 30-day readmissions (ATE, 0.019; P < .001), GIB (ATE, 0.012; P < .001), ICH (ATE, 0.003; P = .017), and nonroutine discharge (ATE, 0.022; P = .006). The subgroup analysis of patients with submassive PE demonstrated that IVT had a higher ATE regarding unplanned 30-day readmission (ATE, 0.028; P < .001), GIB (ATE, 0.008; P = .003), ICH (ATE, 0.002; P = .035), and nonroutine discharge (ATE, 0.019; P = .022) than CDT.
CDT had a lower likelihood of unplanned 30-day readmissions, including when stratified by a submassive PE subtype. Additionally, adverse events, including ICH and GIB, were more likely among patients who received IVT than among those who received CDT.
比较全国再入院数据库(NRD)中导管定向溶栓(CDT)与全身静脉溶栓(IVT)治疗急性次大面积或大面积肺栓塞(PE)的30天再入院率和住院结局。
查询2016年至2019年NRD中接受IVT或CDT治疗的非脓毒症急性PE成年患者。如果患者同时具有对应机械通气、血管加压药或休克的国际疾病分类(ICD-10)编码,则将大面积PE与次大面积PE区分开来。进行倾向评分匹配分析,以推断CDT与IVT在计划外30天再入院、非常规出院、胃肠道出血(GIB)和颅内出血(ICH)方面的关联。这些结果以IVT与CDT的平均治疗效果(ATEs)表示。
共研究了37116例急性PE患者;18702例(50.3%)接受了CDT,18414例(49.7%)接受了IVT。两组中分别有2083例(11.1%)和3423例(18.6%)为大面积PE(P <.001)。在计划外30天再入院(ATE,0.019;P <.001)、GIB(ATE,0.012;P <.001)、ICH(ATE,0.003;P =.017)和非常规出院(ATE,0.022;P =.006)方面,IVT的ATE高于CDT。次大面积PE患者的亚组分析表明,在计划外30天再入院(ATE,0.028;P <.001)、GIB(ATE,0.008;P =.003)、ICH(ATE,0.002;P =.035)和非常规出院(ATE,0.019;P =.022)方面,IVT的ATE高于CDT。
CDT发生计划外30天再入院的可能性较低,包括按次大面积PE亚型分层时。此外,接受IVT的患者发生ICH和GIB等不良事件的可能性高于接受CDT的患者。