导管引导溶栓与大口径抽吸血栓切除术治疗急性肺栓塞术后血红蛋白的比较。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Pub Date : 2024-10-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jvir.2024.10.005
Jamil M Ahmed, Christopher J Grilli, Daniel A Leung, Assaf Graif
{"title":"导管引导溶栓与大口径抽吸血栓切除术治疗急性肺栓塞术后血红蛋白的比较。","authors":"Jamil M Ahmed, Christopher J Grilli, Daniel A Leung, Assaf Graif","doi":"10.1016/j.jvir.2024.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare changes in hemoglobin (HB) following catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDL) versus large-bore aspiration thrombectomy (LBAT) of acute pulmonary embolism (PE).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective review of patients with acute high- or intermediate-risk PE treated with CDL or LBAT between December 2009 and September 2023 was performed. The LBAT group was divided according to usage of an autotransfusion device (ATD). There were 166 patients in the CDL group (56 years ± 15). LBAT patients were treated without (LBAT, n = 58, 61 years ± 16) or with (LBATw, n = 47, 62 years ± 15) an ATD. Endpoints included change in HB between preprocedural and postprocedural measurements, the 7-day postprocedural nadir (low point), and adverse events (AEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean HB changes between preprocedural and postprocedural measurements in the CDL, LBAT, and LBATw groups were -1.3 g/dL ± 1.3, -1.6 g/dL ± 0.98, and -1.1 g/dL ± 0.9, respectively (P = .098). The mean HB changes to the 7-day postprocedural nadir in the CDL, LBAT, and LBATw groups were -1.7 g/dL (SD ± 1.4), -2.4 g/dL (SD ± 1.3), and -1.8 g/dL (SD ± 1.3), respectively (P = .008). The minor hemorrhagic AE rates were 3.6% in the CDL group, 12.1% in the LBAT group, and 14.9% in the LBATw group (P = .010). There was no significant difference in moderate (P = .079) and major (P = .529) hemorrhagic AEs between the groups. There were no procedure-related mortalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of LBAT without ATD resulted in a significant decrease in HB to the 7-day postprocedural nadir compared with CDL or LBAT with ATD. This did not translate into significantly higher transfusion rates or moderate or major hemorrhagic events. Findings suggest that the decision between CDL and LBAT should not be based solely on the expected blood loss consideration.</p>","PeriodicalId":49962,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Postprocedural Hemoglobin in Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis versus Large-Bore Aspiration Thrombectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism.\",\"authors\":\"Jamil M Ahmed, Christopher J Grilli, Daniel A Leung, Assaf Graif\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jvir.2024.10.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare changes in hemoglobin (HB) following catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDL) versus large-bore aspiration thrombectomy (LBAT) of acute pulmonary embolism (PE).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective review of patients with acute high- or intermediate-risk PE treated with CDL or LBAT between December 2009 and September 2023 was performed. The LBAT group was divided according to usage of an autotransfusion device (ATD). There were 166 patients in the CDL group (56 years ± 15). LBAT patients were treated without (LBAT, n = 58, 61 years ± 16) or with (LBATw, n = 47, 62 years ± 15) an ATD. Endpoints included change in HB between preprocedural and postprocedural measurements, the 7-day postprocedural nadir (low point), and adverse events (AEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean HB changes between preprocedural and postprocedural measurements in the CDL, LBAT, and LBATw groups were -1.3 g/dL ± 1.3, -1.6 g/dL ± 0.98, and -1.1 g/dL ± 0.9, respectively (P = .098). The mean HB changes to the 7-day postprocedural nadir in the CDL, LBAT, and LBATw groups were -1.7 g/dL (SD ± 1.4), -2.4 g/dL (SD ± 1.3), and -1.8 g/dL (SD ± 1.3), respectively (P = .008). The minor hemorrhagic AE rates were 3.6% in the CDL group, 12.1% in the LBAT group, and 14.9% in the LBATw group (P = .010). There was no significant difference in moderate (P = .079) and major (P = .529) hemorrhagic AEs between the groups. There were no procedure-related mortalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of LBAT without ATD resulted in a significant decrease in HB to the 7-day postprocedural nadir compared with CDL or LBAT with ATD. This did not translate into significantly higher transfusion rates or moderate or major hemorrhagic events. Findings suggest that the decision between CDL and LBAT should not be based solely on the expected blood loss consideration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49962,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2024.10.005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2024.10.005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较急性肺栓塞(PE)导管引导溶栓(CDL)与大口径抽吸血栓切除术(LBAT)后血红蛋白(HB)的变化:单中心回顾性分析2009年12月至2023年9月期间接受CDL或LBAT治疗的急性高危和中危PE患者。LBAT组根据自动输血装置(ATD)的使用情况进行划分。CDL 组有 166 名患者(56±15 岁)。LBAT患者接受无ATD治疗(LBAT,n=58,61±16岁)或使用ATD治疗(LBATw,n=47,62±15岁)。终点包括术前和术后HB的变化、术后7天的最低点(低点)和不良事件(AE):CDL组、LBAT组和LBATw组术前和术后的平均HB变化分别为-1.3±1.3 g/dl、-1.6±0.98 g/dl和-1.1±0.9 g/dl(P=0.098)。CDL组、LBAT组和LBATw组患者术后7天到最低点的平均HB变化分别为-1.7±1.4 g/dl、-2.4±1.3 g/dl和-1.8±1.3 g/dl(P=0.008)。CDL 的轻微出血性 AE 率为 3.6%,LBAT 为 12.1%,LBATw 为 14.9%(P=0.010)。中度(p=0.079)和大出血 AE(p=0.529)在各组间无明显差异。没有发生与手术相关的死亡率:结论:与 CDL 或带 ATD 的 LBAT 相比,使用不带 ATD 的 LBAT 可使 HB 显著降至术后 7 天的最低值。这并没有导致输血率、中度或大出血事件明显增加。研究结果表明,在 CDL 和 LBAT 之间做出选择时,不应只考虑预期失血量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Comparison of Postprocedural Hemoglobin in Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis versus Large-Bore Aspiration Thrombectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

Purpose: To compare changes in hemoglobin (HB) following catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDL) versus large-bore aspiration thrombectomy (LBAT) of acute pulmonary embolism (PE).

Materials and methods: A single-center retrospective review of patients with acute high- or intermediate-risk PE treated with CDL or LBAT between December 2009 and September 2023 was performed. The LBAT group was divided according to usage of an autotransfusion device (ATD). There were 166 patients in the CDL group (56 years ± 15). LBAT patients were treated without (LBAT, n = 58, 61 years ± 16) or with (LBATw, n = 47, 62 years ± 15) an ATD. Endpoints included change in HB between preprocedural and postprocedural measurements, the 7-day postprocedural nadir (low point), and adverse events (AEs).

Results: The mean HB changes between preprocedural and postprocedural measurements in the CDL, LBAT, and LBATw groups were -1.3 g/dL ± 1.3, -1.6 g/dL ± 0.98, and -1.1 g/dL ± 0.9, respectively (P = .098). The mean HB changes to the 7-day postprocedural nadir in the CDL, LBAT, and LBATw groups were -1.7 g/dL (SD ± 1.4), -2.4 g/dL (SD ± 1.3), and -1.8 g/dL (SD ± 1.3), respectively (P = .008). The minor hemorrhagic AE rates were 3.6% in the CDL group, 12.1% in the LBAT group, and 14.9% in the LBATw group (P = .010). There was no significant difference in moderate (P = .079) and major (P = .529) hemorrhagic AEs between the groups. There were no procedure-related mortalities.

Conclusions: The use of LBAT without ATD resulted in a significant decrease in HB to the 7-day postprocedural nadir compared with CDL or LBAT with ATD. This did not translate into significantly higher transfusion rates or moderate or major hemorrhagic events. Findings suggest that the decision between CDL and LBAT should not be based solely on the expected blood loss consideration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.30%
发文量
942
审稿时长
90 days
期刊介绍: JVIR, published continuously since 1990, is an international, monthly peer-reviewed interventional radiology journal. As the official journal of the Society of Interventional Radiology, JVIR is the peer-reviewed journal of choice for interventional radiologists, radiologists, cardiologists, vascular surgeons, neurosurgeons, and other clinicians who seek current and reliable information on every aspect of vascular and interventional radiology. Each issue of JVIR covers critical and cutting-edge medical minimally invasive, clinical, basic research, radiological, pathological, and socioeconomic issues of importance to the field.
期刊最新文献
Risks of Aliquot Delivery of Conformable Embolic Material: Embolic Dislodgement Resulting in Non-target Embolization. A Decade Long Analysis of Healthcare Disparities and Uterine Artery Embolization: An Exploration of Social Determinants of Health. Attrition Rates in Interventional Radiology Integrated Residency Programs. Combining Radioembolization and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Quest for Synergy. Percutaneous Anterograde Varicocele Embolisation: Technique and Clinical Outcomes.
×
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