Catheter-Directed Therapy: Outcomes Versus Standard of Care and Evaluation of Current Practice

Abstract

BackgroundSmall studies have noted benefit with the use of catheter-directed therapy (CDT) versus standard of care in treatment of pulmonary embolism, but none have focused on the variability of clinical practice with this modality. MethodsInternational Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were used to retrospectively identify consecutive adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with pulmonary embolism over a 2-year period. We evaluated inpatient mortality and major bleeding and assessed treatment variation. Results: Of 284 patients included, 46 underwent CDT (9 massive pulmonary embolism, 37 submassive pulmonary embolism). Significantly more patients who underwent standard treatment had a history of congestive heart failure and diabetes. Obesity, higher troponin levels, and right heart strain were significantly more likely in the CDT group. No significant difference in inpatient mortality or major bleeding events was observed between the treatment groups. Tissue plasminogen activator use varied widely in the CDT group, and inferior vena cava filter utilization was significantly more common in the CDT group (18; 41%) compared with the standard group (40; 17%) (P < 0.01). ConclusionsIn this study, no significant difference in inpatient mortality or major bleeding was found in patients in the intensive care unit with pulmonary embolism who underwent CDT compared with standard care. It may be beneficial to standardize this procedure given the potential benefit of CDT in patients with submassive pulmonary embolism.