Dataset Information

Association Between the Use of Pre- and Post-thrombolysis Anticoagulation With All-Cause Mortality and Major Bleeding in Patients With Pulmonary Embolism

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore the comparative clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of anticoagulation before (pre-) or following (post-) thrombolytic therapy in systemic thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism (PE).

Methods

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through 1 May 2021. All randomized clinical trials comparing systemic thrombolytic therapy vs. anticoagulation alone in patients with PE and those that were written in English were eligible. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were all-cause mortality and major bleeding, respectively. Odds ratios (OR) estimates and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A Bayesian network analysis was performed using R studio software, and then the efficacy and safety rankings were derived.

Results

This network meta-analysis enrolled 15 trials randomizing 2,076 patients. According to the plot rankings, the anticoagulant therapy was the best in terms of major bleeding, and the post-thrombolysis anticoagulation was the best in terms of all-cause mortality. Taking major bleeding and all-cause mortality into consideration, the most safe–effective treatment was the post-thrombolysis anticoagulation in patients who needed thrombolytic therapy. The net clinical benefit analysis comparing associated ICH benefits vs. mortality risks of post-thrombolysis anticoagulation demonstrated a net clinical benefit of 1.74%.

Conclusion

The systemic thrombolysis followed by anticoagulation had a better advantage in all-cause mortality and major bleeding than the systemic thrombolysis before anticoagulation. The adjuvant anticoagulation treatment of systemic thrombolytic therapy should be optimized.

SUBMITTER: Tan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9279684 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We aimed to compare six available bleeding scores, in a real-life cohort, for prediction of major bleeding in the early phase of pulmonary embolism (PE). We recorded in-hospital characteristics of 2754 PE patients in a prospective observational multicenter cohort contributing 18,028 person-days follow-up. The VTE-BLEED (Venous Thrombo-Embolism Bleed), RIETE (Registro informatizado de la enfermedad tromboembólica en España; Computerized Registry of Patients with Venous Thromboembolism), ORBIT (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment), HEMORR2HAGES (Hepatic or Renal Disease, Ethanol Abuse, Malignancy, Older Age, Reduced Platelet Count or Function, Re-Bleeding, Hypertension, Anemia, Genetic Factors, Excessive Fall Risk and Stroke), ATRIA (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation), and HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile International Normalized Ratio, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol) scores were assessed at baseline. International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)-defined bleeding events were independently adjudicated. Accuracy of the overall original 3-level and newly defined optimal 2-level outcome of the scores were evaluated and compared. We observed 82 first early major bleedings (3.0% (95% CI, 2.4-3.7)). The predictive power of bleeding scores was poor (Harrel's C-index from 0.57 to 0.69). The RIETE score had numerically higher model fit and discrimination capacity but without reaching statistical significance versus the ORBIT, HEMORR2HAGES, and ATRIA scores. The VTE-BLEED and HAS-BLED scores had significantly lower C-index, integrated discrimination improvement, and net reclassification improvement compared to the others. The rate of observed early major bleeding in score-defined low-risk patients was high, between 15% and 34%. Current available scoring systems have insufficient accuracy to predict early major bleeding in patients with acute PE. The development of acute-PE-specific risk scores is needed to optimally target bleeding prevention strategies.

Project description:ImportanceThe optimal treatment of intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis (cCDT) plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation monotherapy in improving echocardiographic measures of right ventricle (RV) to left ventricle (LV) ratio in acute intermediate-high-risk PE.Design, setting, and participantsThe Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism (CANARY) trial was an open-label, randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE, conducted in 2 large cardiovascular centers in Tehran, Iran, between December 22, 2018, through February 2, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to cCDT (alteplase, 0.5 mg/catheter/h for 24 hours) plus heparin vs anticoagulation monotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of patients with a 3-month echocardiographic RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9, assessed by a core laboratory, was the primary outcome. The proportion of patients with an RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization and the 3-month all-cause mortality were among secondary outcomes. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) was the main safety outcome. A clinical events committee, masked to the treatment assignment, adjudicated clinical outcomes.ResultsThe study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic after recruiting 94 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [2.5] years; 27 women [29%]), of whom 85 patients completed the 3-month echocardiographic follow-up. Overall, 2 of 46 patients (4.3%) in the cCDT group and 5 of 39 patients (12.8%) in the anticoagulation monotherapy group met the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-1.69; P = .24). The median (IQR) 3-month RV/LV ratio was significantly lower with cCDT (0.7 [0.6-0.7]) than with anticoagulation (0.8 [0.7-0.9); P = .01). An RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization was observed in fewer patients treated with cCDT (13 of 48 [27.0%]) than anticoagulation (24 of 46 [52.1%]; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.80; P = .01). Fewer patients assigned to cCDT experienced a 3-month composite of death or RV/LV greater than 0.9 (2 of 48 [4.3%] vs 8 of 46 [17.3%]; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.03; P = .048). One case of nonfatal major gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in the cCDT group.Conclusions and relevanceThis prematurely terminated randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high-risk PE was hypothesis-generating for improvement in some efficacy outcomes and acceptable rate of major bleeding for cCDT compared with anticoagulation monotherapy and provided support for a definitive clinical outcomes trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05172115.