Suppr超能文献

高危肺栓塞患者导管定向溶栓与导管定向取栓术的疗效:一项全国性分析。

Outcomes with catheter-directed thrombolysis vs. catheter-directed embolectomy among patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism: a nationwide analysis.

作者信息

Sedhom Ramy, Elbadawi Ayman, Megaly Michael, Athar Ahmed, Bharadwaj Aditya S, Prasad Vinoy, Cameron Scott J, Weinberg Ido, Mamas Mamas A, Messerli Adrian W, Jaber Wissam, Elgendy Islam Y

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Loma Linda University Medical Center, 11234 Anderson St, Loma Linda, CA 92354, USA.

Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.

出版信息

Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2023 Apr 17;12(4):224-231. doi: 10.1093/ehjacc/zuad004.

Abstract

AIMS

To examine the shot-term outcomes with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) vs. catheter-directed embolectomy (CDE) for high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database was utilized to identify hospitalizations with high-risk PE undergoing CDE or CDT from 2016 to 2019. The main outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality. Propensity score matching was used to compare the outcomes in both groups. Among 3216 high-risk PE hospitalizations undergoing catheter-directed interventions, 868 (27%) received CDE, 1864 (58%) received CDT, and 484 (15%) received both procedures. In the unadjusted analysis, the rate of all-cause in-hospital mortality was not different between CDE and CDT (39.6% vs. 34.2%, P = 0.07). After propensity score matching, there was no difference in the incidence of in-hospital mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95, 1.72, P = 0.10], intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (adjusted OR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.75, 3.29, P = 0.23), or non-ICH bleeding (aOR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.62, P = 0.33). There were no differences in the length of stay, cost, and 30-day unplanned readmissions between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this contemporary observational analysis of patients admitted with high-risk PE undergoing CDT or CDE, the rates of in-hospital mortality, ICH, and non-ICH bleeding events were not different.

摘要

目的

比较导管直接溶栓(CDT)与导管直接取栓术(CDE)治疗高危肺栓塞(PE)的短期疗效。

方法与结果

利用全国再入院数据库,确定2016年至2019年接受CDE或CDT治疗的高危PE住院患者。主要结局为全因院内死亡率。采用倾向评分匹配法比较两组的结局。在3216例接受导管介入治疗的高危PE住院患者中,868例(27%)接受了CDE,1864例(58%)接受了CDT,484例(15%)接受了两种治疗。在未调整分析中,CDE组和CDT组的全因院内死亡率无差异(39.6%对34.2%,P = 0.07)。倾向评分匹配后,院内死亡率(调整优势比[aOR]:1.28,95%置信区间[CI]:0.95,1.72,P = 0.10)、颅内出血(ICH)(调整OR 1.57,95% CI:0.75,3.29,P = 0.23)或非ICH出血(aOR:1.17,95% CI:0.85,1.62,P = 0.33)的发生率均无差异。两组在住院时间、费用和30天内非计划再入院方面也无差异。

结论

在这项对接受CDT或CDE治疗的高危PE患者的当代观察性分析中,院内死亡率、ICH和非ICH出血事件的发生率无差异。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验