Large-bore Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Intermediate-risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Results of the PEERLESS Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 5.2 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENERGY & FUELS Energy & Fuels Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364
Wissam A Jaber, Carin F Gonsalves, Stefan Stortecky, Samuel Horr, Orestis Pappas, Ripal T Gandhi, Keith Pereira, Jay Giri, Sameer J Khandhar, Khawaja Afzal Ammar, David M Lasorda, Brian Stegman, Lucas Busch, David J Dexter Ii, Ezana M Azene, Nikhil Daga, Fakhir Elmasri, Chandra R Kunavarapu, Mark E Rea, Joseph S Rossi, Joseph Campbell, Jonathan Lindquist, Adam Raskin, Jason C Smith, Thomas M Tamlyn, Gabriel A Hernandez, Parth Rali, Torrey R Schmidt, Jeffrey T Bruckel, Juan C Camacho, Jun Li, Samy Selim, Catalin Toma, Sukhdeep Singh Basra, Brian A Bergmark, Bhavraj Khalsa, David M Zlotnick, Jordan Castle, David J O'Connor, C Michael Gibson
{"title":"Large-bore Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Intermediate-risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Results of the PEERLESS Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Wissam A Jaber, Carin F Gonsalves, Stefan Stortecky, Samuel Horr, Orestis Pappas, Ripal T Gandhi, Keith Pereira, Jay Giri, Sameer J Khandhar, Khawaja Afzal Ammar, David M Lasorda, Brian Stegman, Lucas Busch, David J Dexter Ii, Ezana M Azene, Nikhil Daga, Fakhir Elmasri, Chandra R Kunavarapu, Mark E Rea, Joseph S Rossi, Joseph Campbell, Jonathan Lindquist, Adam Raskin, Jason C Smith, Thomas M Tamlyn, Gabriel A Hernandez, Parth Rali, Torrey R Schmidt, Jeffrey T Bruckel, Juan C Camacho, Jun Li, Samy Selim, Catalin Toma, Sukhdeep Singh Basra, Brian A Bergmark, Bhavraj Khalsa, David M Zlotnick, Jordan Castle, David J O'Connor, C Michael Gibson","doi":"10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a lack of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data comparing outcomes of different catheter-based interventions for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PEERLESS is a prospective, multicenter, RCT that enrolled 550 intermediate-risk PE patients with right ventricular dilatation and additional clinical risk factors randomized 1:1 to treatment with large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). The primary endpoint was a hierarchal win ratio (WR) composite of the following: 1) all-cause mortality, 2) intracranial hemorrhage, 3) major bleeding, 4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and 5) postprocedural intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of stay, assessed at the sooner of hospital discharge or 7 days post-procedure. Assessments at the 24-hour visit included respiratory rate, mMRC dyspnea score, NYHA classification, right ventricle (RV)/left ventricle (LV) ratio reduction, and RV function. Endpoints through 30 days included total hospital stay, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary endpoint occurred significantly less frequently with LBMT vs CDT (WR 5.01 [95% CI: 3.68-6.97]; <i>P</i><0.001). There were significantly fewer episodes of clinical deterioration and/or bailout (1.8% vs 5.4%; <i>P</i>=0.04) with LBMT vs CDT and less postprocedural ICU utilization (<i>P</i><0.001), including admissions (41.6% vs 98.6%) and stays >24 hours (19.3% vs 64.5%). There was no significant difference in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding between strategies, nor in a secondary WR endpoint including the first 4 components (WR 1.34 [95% CI: 0.78-2.35]; <i>P</i>=0.30). At the 24-hour visit, respiratory rate was lower for LBMT patients (18.3±3.3 vs 20.1±5.1; <i>P</i><0.001) and fewer had moderate to severe mMRC dyspnea scores (13.5% vs 26.4%; <i>P</i><0.001), NYHA classifications (16.3% vs 27.4%; <i>P</i>=0.002), and RV dysfunction (42.1% vs 57.9%; <i>P</i>=0.004). RV/LV ratio reduction was similar (0.32±0.24 vs 0.30±0.26; <i>P</i>=0.55). LBMT patients had shorter total hospital stays (4.5±2.8 vs 5.3±3.9 overnights; <i>P</i>=0.002) and fewer all-cause readmissions (3.2% vs 7.9%; <i>P</i>=0.03), while 30-day mortality was similar (0.4% vs 0.8%; <i>P</i>=0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEERLESS met its primary endpoint in favor of LBMT vs CDT in treatment of intermediate-risk PE. LBMT had lower rates of clinical deterioration and/or bailout and postprocedural ICU utilization compared with CDT, with no difference in mortality or bleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":35,"journal":{"name":"Energy & Fuels","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy & Fuels","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENERGY & FUELS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data comparing outcomes of different catheter-based interventions for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE).

Methods: PEERLESS is a prospective, multicenter, RCT that enrolled 550 intermediate-risk PE patients with right ventricular dilatation and additional clinical risk factors randomized 1:1 to treatment with large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). The primary endpoint was a hierarchal win ratio (WR) composite of the following: 1) all-cause mortality, 2) intracranial hemorrhage, 3) major bleeding, 4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and 5) postprocedural intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of stay, assessed at the sooner of hospital discharge or 7 days post-procedure. Assessments at the 24-hour visit included respiratory rate, mMRC dyspnea score, NYHA classification, right ventricle (RV)/left ventricle (LV) ratio reduction, and RV function. Endpoints through 30 days included total hospital stay, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality.

Results: The primary endpoint occurred significantly less frequently with LBMT vs CDT (WR 5.01 [95% CI: 3.68-6.97]; P<0.001). There were significantly fewer episodes of clinical deterioration and/or bailout (1.8% vs 5.4%; P=0.04) with LBMT vs CDT and less postprocedural ICU utilization (P<0.001), including admissions (41.6% vs 98.6%) and stays >24 hours (19.3% vs 64.5%). There was no significant difference in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding between strategies, nor in a secondary WR endpoint including the first 4 components (WR 1.34 [95% CI: 0.78-2.35]; P=0.30). At the 24-hour visit, respiratory rate was lower for LBMT patients (18.3±3.3 vs 20.1±5.1; P<0.001) and fewer had moderate to severe mMRC dyspnea scores (13.5% vs 26.4%; P<0.001), NYHA classifications (16.3% vs 27.4%; P=0.002), and RV dysfunction (42.1% vs 57.9%; P=0.004). RV/LV ratio reduction was similar (0.32±0.24 vs 0.30±0.26; P=0.55). LBMT patients had shorter total hospital stays (4.5±2.8 vs 5.3±3.9 overnights; P=0.002) and fewer all-cause readmissions (3.2% vs 7.9%; P=0.03), while 30-day mortality was similar (0.4% vs 0.8%; P=0.62).

Conclusions: PEERLESS met its primary endpoint in favor of LBMT vs CDT in treatment of intermediate-risk PE. LBMT had lower rates of clinical deterioration and/or bailout and postprocedural ICU utilization compared with CDT, with no difference in mortality or bleeding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大口径机械取栓术与导管引导溶栓术在中危肺栓塞治疗中的应用:PEERLESS随机对照试验的初步结果。
背景:缺乏随机对照试验(RCT)数据来比较不同导管介入治疗中危肺栓塞(PE)的结果:目前缺乏随机对照试验(RCT)数据来比较不同导管介入治疗中危肺栓塞(PE)的结果:PEERLESS是一项前瞻性、多中心、随机对照试验,共纳入了550名右心室扩张并伴有其他临床危险因素的中危肺栓塞患者,按照1:1的比例随机接受大孔机械取栓术(LBMT)或导管引导溶栓术(CDT)治疗。主要终点是下列指标的分层胜率(WR)复合值:1)全因死亡率;2)颅内出血;3)大出血;4)临床恶化和/或升级到保外治疗;5)术后入住重症监护室(ICU)和住院时间,在出院或术后 7 天内进行评估。24 小时就诊时的评估包括呼吸频率、mMRC 呼吸困难评分、NYHA 分级、右心室 (RV) / 左心室 (LV) 比率降低和 RV 功能。30天的终点包括总住院时间、全因再入院率和全因死亡率:与 CDT 相比,LBMT 的主要终点发生率明显降低(WR 5.01 [95% CI:3.68-6.97];PP=0.04),术后使用 ICU 的时间(P24 小时(19.3% vs 64.5%))也明显减少。不同策略在死亡率、颅内出血或大出血方面没有明显差异,在包括前 4 个组成部分的次要 WR 终点方面也没有明显差异(WR 1.34 [95% CI:0.78-2.35];P=0.30)。在 24 小时访视时,LBMT 患者的呼吸频率较低(18.3±3.3 vs 20.1±5.1;PPP=0.002),RV 功能障碍较低(42.1% vs 57.9%;P=0.004)。RV/LV比值降低情况相似(0.32±0.24 vs 0.30±0.26;P=0.55)。LBMT患者的总住院时间较短(4.5±2.8 vs 5.3±3.9晚;P=0.002),全因再入院率较低(3.2% vs 7.9%;P=0.03),30天死亡率相似(0.4% vs 0.8%;P=0.62):PEERLESS达到了主要终点,在治疗中危PE时,LBMT与CDT相比更胜一筹。与 CDT 相比,LBMT 的临床恶化率和/或保送率以及术后重症监护室使用率更低,但死亡率或出血量没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Energy & Fuels
Energy & Fuels 工程技术-工程:化工
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
13.20%
发文量
1101
审稿时长
2.1 months
期刊介绍: Energy & Fuels publishes reports of research in the technical area defined by the intersection of the disciplines of chemistry and chemical engineering and the application domain of non-nuclear energy and fuels. This includes research directed at the formation of, exploration for, and production of fossil fuels and biomass; the properties and structure or molecular composition of both raw fuels and refined products; the chemistry involved in the processing and utilization of fuels; fuel cells and their applications; and the analytical and instrumental techniques used in investigations of the foregoing areas.
期刊最新文献
A Tale of Two Maladies: Interplay of Mendelian Principles. Randomized Crossover Trial of 2-Week Ketone Ester Treatment in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. Endothelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition Contributes to Accelerated Atherosclerosis in Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome. Myocardial Ischemic Syndromes: A New Nomenclature to Harmonize Evolving International Clinical Practice Guidelines. Efficacy and Safety of Catheter-Based Radiofrequency Renal Denervation in Chinese Patients With Uncontrolled Hypertension: The Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Multi-Center Iberis-HTN Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1