Catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high risk (massive) and intermediate risk (submassive) acute pulmonary embolism

Thrombolysis and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest due to pulmonary embolism: A case report

BACKGROUND

Cardiac arrest caused by acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most serious clinical circumstance, necessitating rapid identification, immediate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and systemic thrombolytic therapy. Extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) is typically employed as a rescue therapy for selected patients when conventional CPR is failing in settings where it can be implemented.

CASE SUMMARY

We present a case of a 69-year-old male who experienced a prolonged cardiac arrest in an ambulance with pulseless electrical activity. Upon arrival at the emergency department with ongoing manual chest compressions, bedside point-of-care ultrasound revealed an enlarged right ventricle without contractility. Acute PE was suspected as the cause of cardiac arrest, and intravenous thrombolytic therapy with 50 mg tissue plasminogen activator was administered during mechanical chest compressions. Despite 31 minutes of CPR, return of spontaneous circulation was not achieved until 8 minutes after initiation of Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support. Under ECMO support, the hemodynamic status and myocardial contractility significantly improved. However, the patient ultimately did not survive due to intracerebral hemorrhagic complications, leading to death a few days later in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

This case illustrates the potential of combining systemic thrombolysis with ECPR for refractory cardiac arrest caused by acute PE, but it also highlights the increased risk of significant bleeding complications, including fatal intracranial hemorrhage.

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) Locations: Best Safety Practices and Local Insights

Mortality rates from pulmonary embolism (PE) remain significant, highlighting the need for alternative treatment strategies beyond traditional anticoagulation. Percutaneous interventions, including mechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis, are emerging as promising options. Given the complex pathophysiology and unique risk profiles of these patients, meticulous multidisciplinary planning is essential. Anesthesiologists play a central role in coordinating care and managing perioperative risks to improve outcomes. This article provides insights into best safety practices and shares experiences from a leading quaternary center. It offers guidance for anesthesia providers to proactively engage in comprehensive risk stratification, participate in multidisciplinary discussions, and support robust contingency planning for managing PE patients undergoing percutaneous interventions in non-operating room anesthesia settings.

Advanced Management of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Treatment for Pulmonary Embolism: Evidence-Based Strategies for Optimized Patient Care

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening medical condition caused by the thrombotic occlusion of one or more branches of the lung vasculature, which represents the third most common cause of cardiovascular mortality after myocardial infarction and stroke. PE treatment requires a tailored approach based on accurate risk stratification and personalized treatment decision-making. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of PE management, yet patients at higher clinical risk may require more rapid reperfusion therapies. In recent years, transcatheter treatment has emerged as a valuable option for patients with intermediate-high or high-risk PE who have contraindications to systemic thrombolysis. Recent advancements in catheter-directed therapies, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and catheter-directed mechanical thrombectomy (CDMT), provide minimally invasive options for swift symptom relief and hemodynamic stabilization. This review aims to provide a practical approach for optimal patient selection and management for PE percutaneous therapies, supported by a thorough evaluation of the current evidence base supporting these procedures. A focus on post-procedural management, the prevention of recurrence, and monitoring for long-term complications such as chronic pulmonary hypertension and post-PE syndrome is also specifically tackled.

Ultrasound-Facilitated, Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) poses a significant risk to patient health, with treatment options varying in efficacy and safety. Ultrasound-facilitated catheter-directed thrombolysis (USCDT) has emerged as a potential alternative to conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for patients with intermediate to high-risk APE. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of USCDT versus conventional CDT in patients with intermediate to high-risk APE.

METHODS

This observational retrospective study was conducted at the Armed Forces Hospital, Al-Hada, Taif, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), on 135 patients diagnosed with APE and treated with either USCDT or CDT (58 underwent CDT, while 77 underwent USCDT). The primary efficacy outcome was the change in the right ventricle to the left ventricle (RV/LV) diameter ratio. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulmonary artery systolic pressure and the Miller angiographic obstruction index score. Safety outcomes focused on major bleeding events.

RESULTS

Both USCDT and CDT significantly reduced RV/LV diameter ratio (from 1.35 ± 0.14 to 1.05 ± 0.17, P < 0.001) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) (from 55 ± 7 mmHg to 38 ± 7 mmHg, P < 0.001) at 48- and 12-hours post-procedure, respectively, with no significant differences between treatments. However, USCDT was associated with a significantly lower rate of major bleeding events compared to CDT (0% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.008). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that USCDT was associated with a 71.9% risk reduction of bleeding (OR = 0.281, 95% CI = 0.126 - 0.627, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

USCDT is a safe and effective alternative to CDT for the treatment of intermediate to high-risk APE, as it significantly reduces the risk of major bleeding.

Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation: Unveiling the Trade-Offs in Massive Pulmonary Embolism

Massive pulmonary embolism (MPE) is a severe form of venous thromboembolism (VTE) wherein enormous blood clots block the pulmonary arteries, resulting in substantial illness and death. Even with the progress made in diagnostic methods and treatments, the most effective approach for managing MPE is still a topic of considerable discussion. This study examines the delicate equilibrium between thrombolysis and anticoagulation in managing the problematic clinical situation posed by MPE, elucidating the compromises linked to each strategy. The genesis of MPE lies in the pathophysiology of VTE, when blood clots that originate from deep veins in the lower legs or pelvis move to the pulmonary vasculature, leading to an abrupt blockage. This obstruction leads to a series of hemodynamic alterations, such as elevated pulmonary vascular resistance, strain on the right ventricle, and compromised cardiac output, finally resulting in cardiovascular collapse. The seriousness of MPE is commonly categorized according to hemodynamic stability, with significant cases presenting immediate risks to patient survival. Traditionally, heparin has been the primary approach to managing MPE to prevent the spread of blood clots and their movement to other parts of the body. Nevertheless, there have been ongoing discussions regarding the effectiveness of thrombolysis, which entails the immediate delivery of fibrinolytic drugs to remove the blood clot. The use of thrombolysis in managing MPE is being reconsidered because of concerns over bleeding complications and long-term results despite its capacity to resolve the blocking clot quickly. This review rigorously analyzes the current body of evidence, exploring the intricacies of thrombolysis and anticoagulation in MPE. The focus is on evaluating the risk-benefit balance of each treatment option, considering aspects such as the patient's other medical conditions, hemodynamic stability, and potential long-term consequences. This review aims to clarify the complexities of the thrombolysis versus anticoagulation dilemma. It seeks to provide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers with a thorough understanding of the trade-offs in managing MPE. The goal is to facilitate informed decision-making and enhance patient outcomes.

Successful percutaneous catheter-directed treatment of high-risk pulmonary embolism: a case report

Background

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is an acute cardiovascular syndrome characterized by high incidence and mortality. The therapy of this condition is based on anticoagulation and hemodynamic support, but in case of high-risk mortality, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend systemic thrombolytic therapy and surgical embolectomy if thrombolysis is contraindicated or has failed; nowadays several percutaneous catheter-directed treatments for local thrombolysis or mechanical embolectomy are available, but they have IIa class of recommendation, because of lack of robust scientific evidence favoring their use.

Case Description

We described a case of high-risk PE treated with a novel percutaneous system for mechanical embolectomy, which consists of a large aspiration catheter that was advanced in the pulmonary artery, capturing and removing a vast thrombus, of 15 centimeters in length. This therapeutic strategy avoided the risk of hemorrhagic complications related to systemic thrombolysis, exiting in the achievement of fast patient hemodynamic stabilization and symptoms resolution, without complications. Computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiography after 10 days from the intervention revealed the complete resolution of pulmonary artery filling defects, and the patient was discharged asymptomatic.

Conclusions

Percutaneous catheter-directed treatments represent an effective alternative therapy for PE, but further studies are needed to demonstrate safety and superiority over the actually recommended therapy.