Comparison of outcomes and complications in conventional versus ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis for treatment of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute submassive a massive pulmonary embolism are known as leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in emergency departments. Choosing the optimal type of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of pulmonary embolism presents a quandary to the practitioners. To the best of our knowledge, there is no meta-analysis comparing superiority of conventional CDT and ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis (USACDT). Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of previous published studies comparing conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile was carried out in the electronic databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception to December 2021. Data were analyzed by comprehensive meta-analysis software (CMA, version 3).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included nine studies with a total of 705 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that there is no significant difference between two groups with respect to pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (SMD: -0.084; 95% CI: -0.287 to 0.12; p: 0.41), RV/LV (SMD: -0.003; 95% CI: -0.277 to 0.270; p: 0.98), and Miller score (SMD: -0.345; 95% CI: -1.376 to 0.686; p: 0.51). Similarly, we found no statistically significant differences between two groups regarding major and minor bleeding (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis showed that when compared with USACDT, conventional CDT provides similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes or safety for treatment of pulmonary embolism without the need for very expensive technologies. However, randomized clinical trials are required to further investigate cost-effectiveness of USACDT in comparison with conventional CDT.

Screening Performance Characteristics of Ultrasonography in Confirmation of Endotracheal Intubation; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction:

Recent studies have suggested that point-of-care ultrasonography can be used for confirming the placement of endotracheal tube. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for confirming endotracheal tube placement.

Methods:

In this meta-analysis, systematic search of the previous published papers investigating the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement was performed. Seven electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database were searched up to July 2021, for all relevant articles published in English on this topic. Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results:

The estimated pooled sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube location were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.98–0.99) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.96), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 5.94 (95% CI 4.41–7.98) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.02-0.04), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of ultrasonography was 281.47 and the area under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) revealed an appropriate accuracy of 0.98.

Conclusion:

Ultrasonography has high diagnostic accuracy and can be used as a promising tool for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement, especially in critically ill patients or when capnography is not available, or its result is equivocal.