Comparison of outcomes and complications in conventional versus ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis for treatment of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Acute submassive a massive pulmonary embolism are known as leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in emergency departments. Choosing the optimal type of catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of pulmonary embolism presents a quandary to the practitioners. To the best of our knowledge, there is no meta-analysis comparing superiority of conventional CDT and ultrasound-accelerated catheter directed thrombolysis (USACDT). Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to compare conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile. A systematic literature search of previous published studies comparing conventional CDT with USACDT regarding clinical outcomes and safety profile was carried out in the electronic databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, EBSCO, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane from inception to December 2021. Data were analyzed by comprehensive meta-analysis software (CMA, version 3). The meta-analysis included nine studies with a total of 705 patients. Our meta-analysis showed that there is no significant difference between two groups with respect to pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (SMD: -0.084; 95% CI: -0.287 to 0.12; p: 0.41), RV/LV (SMD: -0.003; 95% CI: -0.277 to 0.270; p: 0.98), and Miller score (SMD: -0.345; 95% CI: -1.376 to 0.686; p: 0.51). Similarly, we found no statistically significant differences between two groups regarding major and minor bleeding (p > .05). Our meta-analysis showed that when compared with USACDT, conventional CDT provides similar clinical and hemodynamic outcomes or safety for treatment of pulmonary embolism without the need for very expensive technologies. However, randomized clinical trials are required to further investigate cost-effectiveness of USACDT in comparison with conventional CDT.