SynthesisClinical cardiology2024
Anticoagulant Impact on Clinical Outcomes of Pulmonary Embolism Compared With Thrombolytic Therapy; Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) is a critical condition requiring effective management strategies. Several options are available, including thrombolytic therapy and anticoagulants.
objectivesTo assess the impact of thrombolytic therapy either combined with anticoagulant (AC) or alone versus AC alone on mortality, recurrence, clinical deterioration, bleeding, and hospital stay.
methodThis study included 25 previously published studies from 1990 to 2023, with a total of 12 836 participants. Dichotomous and continuous analysis models were used to evaluate outcomes, with heterogeneity and publication bias tests applied. A random model was used for data analysis. Several databases were searched for the identification and inclusion of studies, such as Ovid, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and Embase.
resultsFor sub-massive PE, CDT plus AC significantly reduced in-hospital, 30-day, and 12-month mortality compared to AC alone, odds ratio (OR) of -0.99 (95% CI [-1.32 to -0.66]), with increased major bleeding risk but no difference in minor bleeding or hospital stay, OR = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.03 to 0.96]). For acute intermediate PE, systemic thrombolytic therapy did not affect all-cause or in-hospital mortality but increased minor bleeding, reduced recurrent PE, and prevented clinical deterioration. The heterogeneity of different models in the current study varied from 0% to 37.9%.
conclusionThe addition of CDT to AC improves mortality outcomes for sub-massive PE but raises the risk of major bleeding. Systemic thrombolytic therapy reduces recurrence and clinical decline in acute intermediate PE despite increasing minor bleeding. Individualized patient assessment is essential for optimizing PE management strategies.
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.