Effect of Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis on Segmental Artery Occlusions: Insights From the RESCUE Trial

Safety and Feasibility of On-the-Table Pharmacomechanical Lysis for Acute Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: The RESCUE-II Study

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Pharmacomechanical lysis (PML) with the Bashir endovascular catheter has been shown to reduce the right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio in patients with intermediate-risk (IR) PE. Nevertheless, the original protocol required a 5-hour postprocedural infusion of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (r-tPA) and intensive care unit monitoring.

OBJECTIVES

The RESCUE-II (Safety and Feasibility of On-The-Table Pharmacomechanical Lysis for Acute Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism) study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of on-the-table PML using bolus-only r-tPA, without postprocedural infusion, in patients with IR-PE.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective study, symptomatic patients with IR-PE (computed tomographic-derived RV/LV ratio ≥0.9) were treated with bolus-only r-tPA via the Bashir catheter (4 mg per lung, 8 mg total for bilateral PE). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in RV/LV ratio at 48 hours, and the primary safety endpoint was major bleeding within 72 hours.

RESULTS

Nine patients were enrolled and successfully treated. The median procedure time was 39 ± 13.4 minutes. At 48 hours, the mean RV/LV ratio decreased from 1.66 ± 0.56 to 1.27 ± 0.41 (P = 0.0001), and pulmonary artery obstruction, measured by the Refined Modified Miller index, reduced by 29.2%. There were no major bleeding events. One patient had a minor access site hematoma, managed with manual compression.

CONCLUSIONS

On-the-table PML using the Bashir catheter effectively reduced RV/LV ratio and PA obstruction. The procedure was safe, with no major bleeding complications, and offers a rapid, cost-effective treatment option for patients with acute IR-PE.

Innovation in Catheter-Directed Therapy for Intermediate-High-Risk and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

Although anticoagulation remains the cornerstone treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), catheter-directed therapy (CDT) has generated great interest as an adjunctive option for those presenting with hemodynamic decompensation or high risk for deterioration and in whom systemic thrombolysis has failed or is contraindicated. However, randomized controlled data supporting the efficacy and safety of CDT in addition to antithrombotic therapy in patients with high-risk and intermediate- to high-risk PE compared with anticoagulation and systemic thrombolysis alone are lacking. This paucity of high-quality data hampers guideline recommendations regarding the optimal therapeutic approach in such patients with PE. The aim of the present paper is to critically appraise the current evidence for CDT in patients with high-risk and intermediate- to high-risk PE and to highlight major areas of innovation in the recent literature. In addition, the authors describe unmet clinical and research needs, potential strategies to resolve these knowledge gaps, and pathways for device selection.

Contemporary Management of Pulmonary Embolism: Review of the Inferior Vena Cava filter and Other Endovascular Devices

Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters and endovascular devices are used to mitigate the risk of pulmonary embolism in patients presenting with lower extremity venous thromboembolism in whom long-term anticoagulation is not a good option. However, the efficacy and benefit of these devices remain uncertain, and controversies exist. This review focuses on the current use of IVC filters and other endovascular therapies in clinical practice. The indications, risks, and benefits are discussed based on current data. Further research and randomized controlled trials are needed to characterize the patient population that would benefit most from these interventional therapies.

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.