Miao Huang-Tai, Liang Ying, Li Xiao-Ying, Wang Xiao, Zuo Hui-Juan, Zeng Zhe-Chun, Nie Shao-Ping
Center for Coronary Artery Disease, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical Universisty, Beijing, China.
Emergency & Critical Care Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
J Geriatr Cardiol. 2023 Jun 28;20(6):459-468. doi: 10.26599/1671-5411.2023.06.005.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus systemic thrombolysis (ST) in the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE).
The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched to collect the literature on the comparison of the results of CDT and ST in the treatment of PE from the beginning of their records to May 2020, and meta-analysis was performed by STATA software (version 15.1). Using standardized data-collection forms, the authors screened the studies and independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Cohort studies that examined the following results were included in the current study: in-hospital mortality, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, intracranial hemorrhage rate, the incidence of shock, and hospital length of stay.
A total of eight articles, with 13,242 participants, involving 3962 participants in the CDT group and 9280 participants in the ST group were included. CDT compared with ST in the treatment of PE can significantly affect in-hospital mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56, < 0.05], all-cause bleeding rate (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.39, = 0.012), gastrointestinal bleeding rate (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.13-1.81, = 0.003), the incidence of shock (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37-0.57, < 0.05), and hospital length of stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07-0.25, < 0.05]. However, there was no significant effect on intracranial hemorrhage rate in patients with PE (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47-1.03, = 0.070).
CDT is a viable alternative to ST in the treatment of PE, as it can significantly reduce in-hospital mortality rate, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, and incidence of shock. However, CDT may prolong hospital length of stay to a certain extent. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CDT and ST in the treatment of acute PE and other clinical outcomes.
评估导管直接溶栓(CDT)与全身溶栓(ST)治疗肺栓塞(PE)的安全性和有效性。
检索Cochrane图书馆、PubMed和Embase数据库,收集从建库至2020年5月关于CDT和ST治疗PE结果比较的文献,并使用STATA软件(版本15.1)进行荟萃分析。作者使用标准化数据收集表筛选研究、独立提取数据,并采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对队列研究进行质量评估。本研究纳入了考察以下结果的队列研究:住院死亡率、全因出血率、胃肠道出血率、颅内出血率、休克发生率和住院时间。
共纳入8篇文章,13242名参与者,其中CDT组3962名,ST组9280名。CDT与ST治疗PE相比,可显著影响住院死亡率[比值比(OR)=0.41,95%置信区间(CI):0.30 - 0.56,P<0.05]、全因出血率(OR = 1.20,95%CI:1.04 - 1.39,P = 0.012)、胃肠道出血率(OR = 1.43,95%CI:1.13 - 1.81,P = 0.003)、休克发生率(OR = 0.46,95%CI:0.37 - 0.57,P<0.05)和住院时间[标准均数差(SMD)=0.16,95%CI:0.07 - 0.25,P<0.05]。然而,对PE患者的颅内出血率无显著影响(OR = 0.70,95%CI:0.47 - 1.03,P = 0.070)。
CDT是治疗PE的一种可行替代方案,因为它可显著降低住院死亡率、全因出血率、胃肠道出血率和休克发生率。然而,CDT可能在一定程度上延长住院时间。需要进一步研究以评估CDT和ST治疗急性PE的安全性和有效性以及其他临床结局。