Studies have shown variable outcomes regarding catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy (MT) versus catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data.

Methods

Online databases were searched for studies comparing MT and CDT for PE. The outcomes of interest were procedure time (minutes), fluoroscopy duration (minutes), estimated blood loss (ml), change in mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP, mmHg), change in right ventricle (RV)/left ventricle (LV) ratio, postprocedural intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU length of stay (days), hospital length of stay (days), intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), major bleeding, all-cause mortality, PE-related readmission and all-cause readmission. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results

A total of 10 studies (1842 patients—852 [MT], 990 [CDT]) were included. The follow up duration varied from in-hospital to 1 year. Mean age was 62 years and 49% of patients were men. As compared to the CDT group, patients undergoing MT had longer procedure time (SMD 6.04, 95% CI 2.46 to 9.62, p = 0.0010), fluoroscopy duration (SMD 1.77, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.71, p = 0.0002), and greater estimated blood loss (SMD 1.56, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.60, p = 0.003), with lower postprocedural ICU admission rate (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.02, p < 0.00001) and ICU length of stay (SMD −0.53, 95% CI −0.91 to −0.15, p = 0.007). No significant differences were found with respect to changes in mPAP and RV/LV ratio, hospital length of stay, ICH, major bleeding, all-cause mortality, PE-related readmission and all-cause readmission.

Conclusion

While CDT is faster and associated with lesser blood loss in patients with PE, the ICU admission rate and length of stay is significantly greater with CDT than MT.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting Information

References

1S. S. Martin, A. W. Aday, Z. I. Almarzooq, et al., “2024 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association,” Circulation 149, no. 8 (February 2024): e347–e913, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001209.
10.1161/CIR.0000000000001209
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2M. Gottlieb, E. Moyer, and K. Bernard, “Epidemiology of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis and Management Among United States Emergency Departments over an Eight-Year Period,” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 85 (November 2024): 158–162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.016.
10.1016/j.ajem.2024.09.016
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3A. Abumoawad, A. ElBallat, Y. Mkhaimer, F. Ghanem, N. Obaed, and M. C. Bunte, “Trends and Outcomes of Lytic-Based Therapies for High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Analysis,” Vascular Medicine 29, no. 1 (February 2024): 26–35, https://doi.org/10.1177/1358863X231211331.
10.1177/1358863X231211331
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4F. Götzinger, L. Lauder, A. S. P. Sharp, et al., “Interventional Therapies for Pulmonary Embolism,” Nature Reviews Cardiology 20, no. 10 (October 2023): 670–684, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-023-00876-0.
10.1038/s41569-023-00876-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5S. Finocchiaro, M. S. Mauro, C. Rochira, et al., “Percutaneous Interventions for Pulmonary Embolism,” EuroIntervention 20, no. 7 (April 2024): e408–e424, https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00895.
10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00895
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6S. Arora, S. Vallabhajosyula, V. Aggarwal, M. B. Basir, B. Kelly, and A. R. Atreya, “Novel Risk Stratification and Hemodynamic Profiling In Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Proposed Classification Inspired By Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention Shock Staging,” Interventional Cardiology Clinics 12, no. 3S (July 2023): 1, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccl.2024.04.002.
10.1016/j.iccl.2024.04.002
PubMed Google Scholar
7Y. Ishisaka, A. Watanabe, T. Fujisaki, et al., “Comparison of Interventions for Intermediate to High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Network Meta-Analysis,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 102, no. 2 (August 2023): 249–265, https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30745.
10.1002/ccd.30745
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8O. Leiva, E. H. Yang, R. P. Rosovsky, C. Alviar, and S. Bangalore, “In-Hospital and Readmission Outcomes of Patients With Cancer Admitted for Pulmonary Embolism Treated With or Without Catheter-Based Therapy,” International Journal of Cardiology 408 (August 2024): 132165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132165.
10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132165
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9O. Leiva, C. Alviar, S. Khandhar, et al., “Catheter-Based Therapy for High-Risk or Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Death and Re-Hospitalization,” European Heart Journal 45, no. 22 (June 2024): 1988–1998, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae184.
10.1093/eurheartj/ehae184
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10O. Leiva, E. Yuriditsky, R. Postelnicu, et al., “Catheter-Based Therapy for Intermediate or High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Is Associated With Lower In-Hospital Mortality In Patients With Cancer: Insights From The National Inpatient Sample,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 103, no. 2 (February 2024): 348–358, https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30917.
10.1002/ccd.30917
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11I. T. Farmakis, S. Barco, G. Giannakoulas, et al., “A Nationwide Analysis of Reperfusion Therapies for Pulmonary Embolism In Older Patients With Frailty,” EuroIntervention 19, no. 9 (November 2023): 772–781, https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00399.
10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00399
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12M. Zuin, B. Bikdeli, J. Ballard-Hernandez, et al., “International Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Acute Pulmonary Embolism,” Journal of the American College of Cardiology 84, no. 16 (October 2024): 1561–1577, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.07.044.
10.1016/j.jacc.2024.07.044
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13O. Segun-Omosehin, M. L. Nasser, J. Nasr, et al., “Safety and Efficacy of Catheter-Directed Thrombectomy Without Thrombolysis In Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” International Journal of Cardiology 420 (February 2025): 132707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132707.
10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132707
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14I. Milioglou, I. Farmakis, M. Wazirali, et al., “Percutaneous Thrombectomy In Patients With Intermediate- and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism and Contraindications to Thrombolytics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 55, no. 2 (February 2023): 228–242, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-022-02750-1.
10.1007/s11239-022-02750-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15T. Kobayashi, E. A. Secemsky, A. J. Klein, et al., “A Safety and Feasibility Single-Arm Study of a Novel Catheter Thrombectomy Device for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism (ENGULF),” Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions 3, no. 6 (May 2024): 102049, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102049.
10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102049
PubMed Google Scholar
16D. Tébar, A. Jurado-Román, S. Jiménez-Valero, et al., “Percutaneous Pulmonary Thrombectomy With Aspiration Catheters in Patients With High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism and Absolute Contraindication to Systemic Thrombolysis,” Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine: Including Molecular Interventions S1553–S8389, no. 24 (2024 Jun 27): 00558-X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2024.06.020.
10.1016/j.carrev.2024.06.020
Google Scholar
17P. Kojodjojo, H. A. Ong, P. H. Loh, et al., “First Use of Large-Bore Suction Thrombectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Asia-Pacific: Feasibility and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes,” Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 55, no. 4 (May 2023): 660–666, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-023-02802-0.
10.1007/s11239-023-02802-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18S. Sławek-Szmyt, J. Stępniewski, M. Kurzyna, et al., “Catheter-Directed Mechanical Aspiration Thrombectomy in a Real-World Pulmonary Embolism Population: A Multicenter Registry,” European Heart Journal—Acute Cardiovascular Care 12, no. 9 (September 2023): 584–593, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuad066.
10.1093/ehjacc/zuad066
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19W. A. Jaber, C. F. Gonsalves, S. Stortecky, et al. “Large-Bore Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis In the Management of Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Results of the PEERLESS Randomized Controlled Trial,” Circulation 151 no. 5 (February 2025): 260–273, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364.
10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, et al., “The Prisma 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews,” BMJ 372 (March 2021): n71, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
10.1136/bmj.n71
PubMed Google Scholar
21 Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) [Computer Program]. Version 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).
Google Scholar
22J. M. Ahmed, C. J. Grilli, D. A. Leung, and A. Graif, “A Comparison of Postprocedural Hemoglobin in Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Large-Bore Aspiration Thrombectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology S1051–0443, no. 24 (October 2024): 00627-4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2024.10.005.
10.1016/j.jvir.2024.10.005
Google Scholar
23H. Al-Terki, L. Lauder, A. Mügge, F. Götzinger, A. Elhakim, and F. Mahfoud, “Ultrasound-Assisted Endovascular Thrombolysis Versus Large-Bore Thrombectomy in Acute Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism: The Propensity-Matched Eknari Cohort Study,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 103, no. 5 (April 2024): 758–765, https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30998.
10.1002/ccd.30998
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24E. D. Avgerinos, A. Abou Ali, C. Toma, et al., “Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Suction Thrombectomy in the Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism,” Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders 7, no. 5 (September 2019): 623–628, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.10.025.
10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.10.025
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25R. Feroze, S. Arora, N. Tashtish, et al., “Comparison of Large-Bore Thrombectomy With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism,” Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions 2, no. 1 (January 2023): 100453, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100453.
10.1016/j.jscai.2022.100453
PubMed Google Scholar
26A. Graif, K. D. Patel, N. J. Wimmer, et al., “Large-Bore Aspiration Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison,” Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 31, no. 12 (December 2020): 2052–2059, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2020.08.028.
10.1016/j.jvir.2020.08.028
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27C. Hennemeyer, A. Khan, H. McGregor, C. Moffett, and G. Woodhead, “Outcomes of Catheter-Directed Therapy Plus Anticoagulation Versus Anticoagulation Alone for Submassive and Massive Pulmonary Embolism,” American Journal of Medicine 132, no. 2 (February 2019): 240–246, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.10.015.
10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.10.015
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28E. K. Inci, S. Khandhar, C. Toma, et al., “Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter Directed Thrombolysis In Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: A Multicenter Experience,” Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 101, no. 1 (January 2023): 140–146, https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30505.
10.1002/ccd.30505
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29Z. Kattih, S. Meredith, V. Roselli, et al., “Mechanical Thrombectomy Vs Catheter Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation Alone: A Tertiary Center Pert Registry Cohort Analysis,” Thrombosis Research 241 (September 2024): 109114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2024.109114.
10.1016/j.thromres.2024.109114
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30K. Tomaszek and F. Rahman, “Large-Bore Aspiration Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Case Review From a Community Hospital,” American Journal of Interventional Radiology 7 (2023): 15, https://doi.org/10.25259/AJIR_40_2023.
10.25259/AJIR_40_2023
Google Scholar
31M. Zuin, G. Piazza, S. Barco, et al., “Time-Based Reperfusion In Haemodynamically Unstable Pulmonary Embolism Patients: Does Early Reperfusion Therapy Improve Survival?,” European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care 12, no. 10 (October 2023): 714–720, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuad080.
10.1093/ehjacc/zuad080
PubMed Google Scholar
32G. Andò, F. Pelliccia, F. Saia, et al., Working Group of Interventional Cardiology of the Italian Society of Cardiology. “Management of High and Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Position Paper of the Interventional Cardiology Working Group of the Italian Society of Cardiology,” International Journal of Cardiology 400 (April 2024): 131694, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.131694.
10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.131694
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33A. Tran, C. Toma, W. Jaber, et al., “Cost-Comparison of Mechanical Thrombectomy and Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis In Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism,” Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions 3, no. 2 (October 2023): 101187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101187.
10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101187
PubMed Google Scholar
34A. Noman, B. Stegman, A. R. DuCoffe, A. Bhat, K. Hoban, and M. C. Bunte, “Episode Care Costs Following Catheter-Directed Reperfusion Therapies for Pulmonary Embolism: A Literature-Based Comparative Cohort Analysis,” American Journal of Cardiology 225 (August 2024): 178–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.06.002.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.06.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35R. Sedhom, A. Elbadawi, M. Megaly, et al., “Outcomes With Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Vs. Catheter-Directed Embolectomy Among Patients With High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Nationwide Analysis,” European Heart Journal. Acute Cardiovascular Care 12, no. 4 (April 2023): 224–231, https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjacc/zuad004.
10.1093/ehjacc/zuad004
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36P. Monteleone, R. Ahern, S. Banerjee, et al., “Modern Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism (USCDT Vs MT): Results From a Real-World, Big Data Analysis (REAL-PE),” Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions 3, no. 1 (October 2023): 101192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101192.
10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101192
PubMed Google Scholar
37S. J. Baron, C. M. Gibson, R. T. Gandhi, D. Mittleider, D. Dexter, and W. A. Jaber, “Trends in Percutaneous Device Use for the Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism Over Time in the PINC AI Healthcare Database and the National Inpatient Sample,” American Journal of Cardiology 222 (July 2024): 167–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.04.014.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.04.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38B. Rush, J. Ziegler, S. Dyck, et al., “Disparities In Access to and Timing of Interventional Therapies for Pulmonary Embolism Across the United States,” Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 22, no. 7 (July 2024): 1947–1955, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtha.2024.03.013.
10.1016/j.jtha.2024.03.013
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39M. Ismayl, A. Ismayl, D. Hamadi, A. Aboeata, and A. M. Goldsweig, “Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis Versus Thrombectomy for Submassive and Massive Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine 60 (March 2024): 43–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2023.10.002.
10.1016/j.carrev.2023.10.002
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40R. S. Zhang, M. H. Maqsood, A. A. Greco, et al., “Efficacy and Safety of Catheter-Based Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis In Acute Pulmonary Embolism,” American Heart Journal 272 (June 2024): 109–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2024.03.009.
10.1016/j.ahj.2024.03.009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
41The PEERLESS II Study, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06055920.
Google Scholar
42Ultrasound-Facilitated, Catheter-Directed, Thrombolysis in Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism (HI-PEITHO), https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04790370.
Google Scholar
43Comparison of Two Pulmonary Embolism Treatments, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05684796.
Google Scholar
44Pulmonary Embolism—Thrombus Removal With Catheter-Directed Therapy (PE-TRACT), https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05591118.
Google Scholar

Volume106, Issue1

July 1, 2025

Pages 294-302

SCAI Member Sign in

Meta-Analysis of Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Pulmonary Embolism

ABSTRACT

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Supporting Information

References

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Meta-Analysis of Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Pulmonary Embolism

ABSTRACT

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Conflicts of Interest

Supporting Information

References

References

Related

Information