ArticleTanaffos2018
Successful Treatment of Refractory Massive Pulmonary Embolism with Repeated Administration of Systemic Thrombolysis.
Article in Tanaffos, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re-administration of thrombolytics in massive pulmonary embolism with initial therapy failure: a case report.Thrombosis journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Disentangling the phenotypic patterns of hypertension and chronic hypotension.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Recurrent High-Risk Pulmonary Thromboembolism Treated with Repeated Thrombolytic Therapy Could be Helpful for Certain Patients: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.European journal of case reports in internal medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe report a case series of two patients in the intensive care unit with massive pulmonary embolism and obstructive shock who had resolution of shock after repeated administration of alteplase. CASE SUMMARIES: Both patients were initially dosed 10 mg of alteplase followed by infusion of 90 mg over 2 hours, but remained in obstructive shock requiring significant inotropic and vasopressor support. Both patients were deemed poor candidates for embolectomy. The first patient received repeated doses reaching an accumulative dose of 200 mg alteplase over 15 hours. The second patient received an accumulative dose of 250 mg alteplase over 36 hours. Both patients had resolution of shock within 24 hours of repeated administration of alteplase, but also experienced significant drops in hemoglobin, which were supported with transfusions. They were transferred out of the intensive care unit after resolution of obstructive shock and hemorrhage. The first patient died one week after transfer from the intensive care unit due to invasive candidiasis and septic shock. The second patient was weaned from the ventilator and discharged home.
conclusionPatients with obstructive shock secondary to massive pulmonary embolism despite a one-time dose of alteplase and poor candidacy for embolectomy may benefit from repeated doses of alteplase. Due to the short half-life, repeated administration of thrombolytic may be appropriate for younger patients without absolute contraindications to thrombolysis, but future studies are needed to identify the optimal patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30627185PMC6320563W2987042022What 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.