Background: Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) and large-bore-thrombectomy (LBT) are under investigation for the treatment of intermediate-high and high-risk pulmonary embolisms (PE). Comparative studies investigating both devices are scarce.
Aims: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the two most frequently used devices for treatment of acute PE.
Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included 125 patients undergoing LBT or USAT for intermediate- or high-risk PE between 2019 and 2023. Nearest neighbor propensity matching with logistic regression was used to achieve balance on potential confounders. The primary outcome was the change in the right to left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio between baseline and 24 h.
Results: A total of 125 patients were included. After propensity score matching, 95 patients remained in the sample, of which 69 (73%) underwent USAT and 26 (27%) LBT. The RV/LV ratio decrease between baseline and 24 h was greater in the LBT than in the USAT group (adjusted between-group difference: -0.10, 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.04; p = 0.001). Both procedures were safe and adverse events occurred rarely (10% following USAT vs. 4% following LBT; p = 0.439).
Conclusion: In acute intermediate-high and high-risk PE, both LBT and USAT were feasible and safe. The reduction in RV/LV ratio was greater following LBT than USAT. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Keywords: large‐bore thrombectomy; pulmonary embolism; ultrasound‐assisted thrombolysis.
© 2024 The Authors. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.