ArticleThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2025
Comparison of half-dose alteplase and LMWH in intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism: a single-center observational study.
Article in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 2025. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe use of thrombolytics in intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains controversial. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of half-dose alteplase compared to anticoagulation with LMWH in this group. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients treated with thrombolytics (50 mg alteplase) after the establishment of EGEPET (2.10.2018) formed the prospective group, while the retrospective group included patients treated with LMWH (enoxaparin) before EGEPET. Primary outcomes were one-month and one-year mortality. Secondary outcomes were vital sign changes after thrombolysis, hemorrhagic events, recurrence of embolism, chronic pulmonary thromboembolism (CPTE), and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).
resultsThrombolytic group (n = 59) and anticoagulation group (n = 38) were similar in age, comorbidities, and vital signs, except for higher pulse rates in the thrombolytic group. In the thrombolytic group, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio significantly improved [330 (270-380) to 417 (351-447), p < 0.001], and pulse rate decreased [116 (105-127) to 91 (80-104), p < 0.001]. In the anticoagulation group, oxygenation showed no significant change, but pulse rate improved. No major bleeding occurred in either group. One-month mortality was 6.7% in the thrombolytic group and 15.8% in the anticoagulation group (p = 0.18). One-year mortality was 13.7% and 26.3%, respectively (p = 0.17). Advanced age (> 67) (OR: 8.82, %95 CI 1.54 - 50.53 p = 0.014) and elevated second-day pulse > 94/min (OR 7.61, 95% CI 1.33-43.49, p = 0.022) were independent predictors of one-month mortality in the multivariate analysis.
conclusionThrombolytic therapy significantly improved oxygenation and clinical findings without major complications. Although mortality rates were lower in the thrombolytic group, the difference was not statistically significant. These results should be interpreted with caution, and larger prospective studies are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and safety of thrombolytic therapy in this patient population.
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.