ArticleCureus2024
Ultrasound-Facilitated, Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute pulmonary embolism (APE) poses a significant risk to patient health, with treatment options varying in efficacy and safety. Ultrasound-facilitated catheter-directed thrombolysis (USCDT) has emerged as a potential alternative to conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for patients with intermediate to high-risk APE. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of USCDT versus conventional CDT in patients with intermediate to high-risk APE.
methodsThis observational retrospective study was conducted at the Armed Forces Hospital, Al-Hada, Taif, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), on 135 patients diagnosed with APE and treated with either USCDT or CDT (58 underwent CDT, while 77 underwent USCDT). The primary efficacy outcome was the change in the right ventricle to the left ventricle (RV/LV) diameter ratio. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulmonary artery systolic pressure and the Miller angiographic obstruction index score. Safety outcomes focused on major bleeding events.
resultsBoth USCDT and CDT significantly reduced RV/LV diameter ratio (from 1.35 ± 0.14 to 1.05 ± 0.17, P < 0.001) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) (from 55 ± 7 mmHg to 38 ± 7 mmHg, P < 0.001) at 48- and 12-hours post-procedure, respectively, with no significant differences between treatments. However, USCDT was associated with a significantly lower rate of major bleeding events compared to CDT (0% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.008). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that USCDT was associated with a 71.9% risk reduction of bleeding (OR = 0.281, 95% CI = 0.126 - 0.627, P = 0.002).
conclusionsUSCDT is a safe and effective alternative to CDT for the treatment of intermediate to high-risk APE, as it significantly reduces the risk of major bleeding.
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.