Large-Bore Aspiration Thrombectomy versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Propensity Score–Matched Comparison

Abstract

PurposeTo compare effectiveness and safety of large-bore aspiration thrombectomy (LBAT) with catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of acute massive and submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). Materials and MethodsThis retrospective review included patients with acute PE treated with LBAT or CDT using tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) between December 2009 and May 2020. A propensity score based on Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index class and PE severity (massive vs submassive) was calculated, and 26 LBAT cases (age 60.2 y ± 17.1, 14/26 women) were matched with 26 CDT cases (age 59.7 y ± 14.2, 14/26 women). ResultsThe CDT group had 22.1 mg ± 8.1 tPA infused over 21.2 h ± 6.6. Both groups demonstrated similar initial and final systolic pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) (LBAT: 54.5 mm Hg ± 12.9 vs CDT: 54.5 mm Hg ± 16.3, P = .8, and LBAT: 42.5 mm Hg ± 14.1 vs CDT: 42.6 mm Hg ± 12.1, P = .8, respectively) and similar reductions in heart rate (LBAT: −5.4 beats/min ± 19.2 vs CDT: −9.6 beats/min ± 15.8, P = .4). CDT demonstrated a higher reduction in Miller score (−10.1 ± 3.9 vs −7.5 ± 3.8, P = .02). LBAT resulted in 1 minor hemorrhagic complication and 2 procedure-related mortalities, and CDT resulted in 1 minor and 1 major hemorrhagic complication. ConclusionsLBAT and CDT resulted in similar reductions of PAP and heart rate when used to treat acute PE. CDT reduced thrombus burden to a greater degree. Although hemorrhagic complications rates were not significantly different, the LBAT group demonstrated a higher rate of procedure-related mortality. Larger studies are needed to compare the safety of these techniques.