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, 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":"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。","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, 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 are a lack of randomized controlled trial data comparing outcomes of different catheter-based interventions for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PEERLESS is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 550 patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism 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 end point was a hierarchal win ratio composite of the following (assessed at the sooner of hospital discharge or 7 days after the procedure): (1) all-cause mortality, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) major bleeding, (4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and (5) postprocedural intensive care unit admission and length of stay. Assessments at the 24-hour visit included respiratory rate, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, New York Heart Association classification, right ventricle/left ventricle ratio reduction, and right ventricular function. End points through 30 days included total hospital stay, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary end point occurred significantly less frequently with LBMT compared with CDT (win ratio, 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% versus 5.4%; <i>P</i>=0.04) with LBMT compared with CDT and less postprocedural intensive care unit use (<i>P</i><0.001), including admissions (41.6% versus 98.6%) and stays >24 hours (19.3% versus 64.5%). There were no significant differences in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding between strategies or in a secondary win ratio end point including the first 4 components (win ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.78-2.35]; <i>P</i>=0.30). At the 24-hour visit, respiratory rate was lower for patients treated with LBMT (18.3±3.3 versus 20.1±5.1; <i>P</i><0.001), and fewer had moderate to severe modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scores (13.5% versus 26.4%; <i>P</i><0.001), New York Heart Association classifications (16.3% versus 27.4%; <i>P</i>=0.002), and right ventricular dysfunction (42.1% versus 57.9%; <i>P</i>=0.004). Right ventricle/left ventricle ratio reduction was similar (0.32±0.24 versus 0.30±0.26; <i>P</i>=0.55). Patients treated with LBMT had shorter total hospital stays (4.5±2.8 overnights versus 5.3±3.9 overnights; <i>P</i>=0.002) and fewer all-cause readmissions (3.2% versus 7.9%; <i>P</i>=0.03), whereas 30-day mortality was similar (0.4% versus 0.8%; <i>P</i>=0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEERLESS met its primary end point in favor of LBMT compared with CDT in treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. LBMT had lower rates of clinical deterioration and/or bailout and postprocedural intensive care unit use compared with CDT, with no difference in mortality or bleeding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05111613.</p>","PeriodicalId":10331,"journal":{"name":"Circulation","volume":" ","pages":"260-273"},"PeriodicalIF":38.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789609/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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, 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 are a lack of randomized controlled trial data comparing outcomes of different catheter-based interventions for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PEERLESS is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 550 patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism 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 end point was a hierarchal win ratio composite of the following (assessed at the sooner of hospital discharge or 7 days after the procedure): (1) all-cause mortality, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) major bleeding, (4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and (5) postprocedural intensive care unit admission and length of stay. Assessments at the 24-hour visit included respiratory rate, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, New York Heart Association classification, right ventricle/left ventricle ratio reduction, and right ventricular function. End points through 30 days included total hospital stay, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary end point occurred significantly less frequently with LBMT compared with CDT (win ratio, 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% versus 5.4%; <i>P</i>=0.04) with LBMT compared with CDT and less postprocedural intensive care unit use (<i>P</i><0.001), including admissions (41.6% versus 98.6%) and stays >24 hours (19.3% versus 64.5%). There were no significant differences in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding between strategies or in a secondary win ratio end point including the first 4 components (win ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.78-2.35]; <i>P</i>=0.30). At the 24-hour visit, respiratory rate was lower for patients treated with LBMT (18.3±3.3 versus 20.1±5.1; <i>P</i><0.001), and fewer had moderate to severe modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scores (13.5% versus 26.4%; <i>P</i><0.001), New York Heart Association classifications (16.3% versus 27.4%; <i>P</i>=0.002), and right ventricular dysfunction (42.1% versus 57.9%; <i>P</i>=0.004). Right ventricle/left ventricle ratio reduction was similar (0.32±0.24 versus 0.30±0.26; <i>P</i>=0.55). Patients treated with LBMT had shorter total hospital stays (4.5±2.8 overnights versus 5.3±3.9 overnights; <i>P</i>=0.002) and fewer all-cause readmissions (3.2% versus 7.9%; <i>P</i>=0.03), whereas 30-day mortality was similar (0.4% versus 0.8%; <i>P</i>=0.62).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEERLESS met its primary end point in favor of LBMT compared with CDT in treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. LBMT had lower rates of clinical deterioration and/or bailout and postprocedural intensive care unit use compared with CDT, with no difference in mortality or bleeding.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05111613.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10331,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Circulation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"260-273\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":38.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789609/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Circulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
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。
Large-Bore Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Results of the PEERLESS Randomized Controlled Trial.
Background: There are a lack of randomized controlled trial data comparing outcomes of different catheter-based interventions for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.
Methods: PEERLESS is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 550 patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism 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 end point was a hierarchal win ratio composite of the following (assessed at the sooner of hospital discharge or 7 days after the procedure): (1) all-cause mortality, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) major bleeding, (4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and (5) postprocedural intensive care unit admission and length of stay. Assessments at the 24-hour visit included respiratory rate, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, New York Heart Association classification, right ventricle/left ventricle ratio reduction, and right ventricular function. End points through 30 days included total hospital stay, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality.
Results: The primary end point occurred significantly less frequently with LBMT compared with CDT (win ratio, 5.01 [95% CI, 3.68-6.97]; P<0.001). There were significantly fewer episodes of clinical deterioration and/or bailout (1.8% versus 5.4%; P=0.04) with LBMT compared with CDT and less postprocedural intensive care unit use (P<0.001), including admissions (41.6% versus 98.6%) and stays >24 hours (19.3% versus 64.5%). There were no significant differences in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding between strategies or in a secondary win ratio end point including the first 4 components (win ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.78-2.35]; P=0.30). At the 24-hour visit, respiratory rate was lower for patients treated with LBMT (18.3±3.3 versus 20.1±5.1; P<0.001), and fewer had moderate to severe modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scores (13.5% versus 26.4%; P<0.001), New York Heart Association classifications (16.3% versus 27.4%; P=0.002), and right ventricular dysfunction (42.1% versus 57.9%; P=0.004). Right ventricle/left ventricle ratio reduction was similar (0.32±0.24 versus 0.30±0.26; P=0.55). Patients treated with LBMT had shorter total hospital stays (4.5±2.8 overnights versus 5.3±3.9 overnights; P=0.002) and fewer all-cause readmissions (3.2% versus 7.9%; P=0.03), whereas 30-day mortality was similar (0.4% versus 0.8%; P=0.62).
Conclusions: PEERLESS met its primary end point in favor of LBMT compared with CDT in treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. LBMT had lower rates of clinical deterioration and/or bailout and postprocedural intensive care unit use compared with CDT, with no difference in mortality or bleeding.
期刊介绍:
Circulation is a platform that publishes a diverse range of content related to cardiovascular health and disease. This includes original research manuscripts, review articles, and other contributions spanning observational studies, clinical trials, epidemiology, health services, outcomes studies, and advancements in basic and translational research. The journal serves as a vital resource for professionals and researchers in the field of cardiovascular health, providing a comprehensive platform for disseminating knowledge and fostering advancements in the understanding and management of cardiovascular issues.