Ultrasound-Assisted Versus Standard Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Insights From National Inpatient Sample

Abstract

BackgroundPulmonary embolism is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Catheter-directed therapies have emerged as a promising treatment for managing intermediate- and high-risk patients; however, data comparing standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (SCDT) and ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) are limited. This study aimed to investigate trends, outcomes, and predictors of mortality of both modalities from a nationally representative sample. MethodsThis analysis used data from the National Inpatient Sample years 2016-2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. A multivariable regression model was used to compare the outcomes. ResultsAmong 39,430 patients who received catheter-directed thrombolysis, 26,710 (76.8%) received SCDT and 8060 (23.2%) received USAT. The utilization of SCDT and USAT increased during the study years except for 2020. In-hospital mortality was lower among patients who received USAT (2.7% vs 3.8%; P = .04) compared with patients who received SCDT in the unadjusted analysis. On multivariable regression analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of in-hospital mortality between USAT and SCDT (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.08; P = .13). There were no significant differences between SCDT and USAT groups in the rate of bleeding adverse events including intracranial hemorrhage (0.6% vs 0.4%; P = .47), and nonintracranial major bleeding (4.2% vs 4.1%; P = .72). ConclusionsUltrasound-assisted thrombolysis was associated with similar in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications compared with SCDT for acute pulmonary embolism. Further studies are warranted to confirm evaluate the long-term outcomes with both modalities.