SynthesisCurrent cardiology reviews2022
Catheter-directed Thrombolysis
Synthesis in Current cardiology reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of low-dose thrombolysis in intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Anticoagulant Impact on Clinical Outcomes of Pulmonary Embolism Compared With Thrombolytic Therapy; Meta-Analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2024Pooled it
- Catheter-Based Therapies Decrease Mortality in Patients With Intermediate and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Evidence From Meta-Analysis of 65,589 Patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Comparison of 30-Day Readmission Between Early and Late Catheter Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism in the United States.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Cutting-Edge Techniques and Drugs for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis vs. standard catheter-directed thrombolysis in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: A study level meta-analysis of clinical trials.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal therapy for submassive pulmonary embolism remains in question. The following meta-analysis compiles the current evidence comparing Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (CDT) versus Systemic Anticoagulation (SA).
methodsAn electronic search through PubMed and Google scholar revealed studies comparing CDT versus SA in terms of mortality and major bleeding events. Thirty-day, 90-day, and one-year mortality results were analyzed.
resultsSix studies were included in the meta-analysis. Thirty-day and one-year mortality were less with CDT compared to SA (OR 0.27 [CI 0.11-0.67]; and OR 0.50 [CI 0.28-0.89]). Ninety-day mortality was similar between the two methods (OR 0.57 [CI 0.17-1.92]). Compilation of all studies reporting at least greater than 30-day mortality revealed less mortality with CDT (OR 0.51 [0.30-0.86]). Major bleeding was similar between the two treatments (OR 1.63 [CI 0.63-4.20]).
conclusionCDT has less 30-day and 1-year mortality with equivalent rates of major bleeding compared to SA for treatment of submassive 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.