ArticleTexas Heart Institute journal2014
Life-saving systemic thrombolysis in a patient with massive pulmonary embolism and a recent hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident.
Article in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Managing symptomatic intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism presenting concomitantly with intracranial bleeding: case series and literature review.Acute and critical care · 2026Article
- Massive Pulmonary Embolus Following a Hemorrhagic Stroke: A Thrombolysis Therapy Dilemma.Cureus · 2023Article
- Patients with venous thromboembolism after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: a review.Thrombosis journal · 2021Review
- Point-of-care transthoracic echocardiography.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
- Systemic thrombolysis in a patient with massive pulmonary embolism and recent glioblastoma multiforme resection.BMJ case reports · 2017Article
- Good neurological recovery after rescue thrombolysis of presumed pulmonary embolism despite prior 100 minutes CPR.Journal of thoracic disease · 2014Article
- Is it ever wise to disregard absolute practice guidelines? Absolutely.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massive pulmonary embolism is associated with mortality rates exceeding 50%. Current practice guidelines include the immediate administration of thrombolytic therapy in the absence of contraindications. However, thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism is said to be absolutely contraindicated in the presence of recent hemorrhagic stroke and other conditions. The current contraindications to thrombolytic therapy have been extrapolated from data on acute coronary syndrome and are not specific for venous thromboembolic disease. Some investigators have proposed that the current contraindications be viewed as relative, rather than absolute, in cases of high-risk pulmonary embolism. We present the case of a 60-year-old woman in whom massive pulmonary embolism led to cardiac arrest with pulseless electrical activity. Eight weeks earlier, she had sustained a hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident-a classic absolute contraindication to thrombolytic therapy. Despite this practice guideline, we administered tissue plasminogen activator systemically in order to save the patient's life. This therapy did not evoke intracranial bleeding, and the patient was eventually discharged from the hospital. Until guidelines specific to venous thromboembolic disease are developed, we think that the current contraindications to thrombolysis should be considered on an individual basis in patients who are at high risk of death from massive pulmonary embolism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.