4.6 Article

Recombinant tissue plasminogen activator for hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism: A meta-analysis

Journal

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
Volume 134, Issue 1, Pages 50-56

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2014.04.007

Keywords

embolism; hemodynamically stable; thrombolysis; heparin; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The role of thrombolytic therapy for the initial treatment of hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism remains controversial. Methods and Results: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing between administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) and heparin in hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism. Seven trials, involving 594 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with heparin, rt-PA was associated with a non-significant reduction in death (2.75% versus 3.96%; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31-1.52, P for heterogeneity = 0.520) and recurrent pulmonary embolism (2.13% versus 3.34%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.28-1.73), and a non-significant increase in major bleeding (5.15% versus 4.29%; RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.520-2.150). Similar resultswere found based on a subgroup analysis of patients displaying echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD). In contrast, rt-PA treatment was associated with a significant reduction in escalation of care in trials that also enrolled patients displaying RVD compared with heparin treatment (6.56% versus 19.7%; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.65). Conclusion: The currently available data provide no evidence for a benefit of administration of rt-PA compared with heparin for the initial treatment of hemodynamically stable patients experiencing an acute pulmonary embolism. However, rt-PA is partially beneficial specifically among patients displaying RVD. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available