ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
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.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of safety and efficacy of ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis vs. standard catheter-directed thrombolysis for the management of acute pulmonary embolism - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2025Pooled it
- Safety of ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis for central pulmonary embolism in intermediate-high-risk patients with increased bleeding risk in a rural hospital setting.Cardiology journal · 2026Article
- Real-world clinical outcomes of EKOS catheter-directed thrombolysis versus systemic alteplase in acute pulmonary embolism: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Ultrasound-Assisted Versus Standard Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Insights From National Inpatient Sample.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2024Article
- Assessment of effectiveness and safety of thrombolytic therapy to pulmonary emboli by endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle injection.JTCVS techniques · 2023Article
- Response to Letter to the Editor regarding the article "Comparison of Large-Bore Thrombectomy With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism".Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the clinical efficacy of ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) vs. standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (SCDT) in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (aPE). Methods: This study analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients with non-low-risk aPE who received USAT or SCDT. The primary outcomes were all-cause death, total bleeding, and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary thrombotic load score (Miller), improvement in right ventricular-to-left ventricular ratio (RV/LV), dose and duration of the thrombolytic drug tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), length of stay (LOS) in the ICU, and total LOS in the hospital. Results: A total of seven articles and 451 patients were included in this study. 241 patients were in the USAT group and 210 patients were in the SCDT group. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality, total bleeding, and major bleeding between the two groups. Miller scores for pulmonary thrombus also showed no difference between the two groups, but pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) was lower in the SCDT group after-treatment. The reduction of RV/LV from baseline was more pronounced in the SCDT group than in the USAT group (OR: -0.14, 95%CI: -0.20 to 0.07, Conclusion: This study did not detect any differences in all-cause mortality, total bleeding, and major bleeding between non-low-risk aPE patients treated with USAT or SCDT. Improvement in right ventricular function was better in the SCDT group, and hospital LOS was lower in the SCDT group.
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.