Utilization of catheter‐directed thrombolysis in pulmonary embolism and outcome difference between systemic thrombolysis and catheter‐directed thrombolysis

• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26108
• Publication Date: 2015-08-26T14:45:50Z
• Authors: Nish Patel; Nileshkumar J. Patel; Kanishk Agnihotri; Sidakpal S. Panaich; Badal Thakkar; Achint Patel; Chirag Savani; Nilay Patel; Shilpkumar Arora; Abhishek Deshmukh; Parth Bhatt; Carlos Alfonso; Mauricio Cohen; Alfonso Tafur; Mahir Elder; Tamam Mohamed; Ramak Attaran; Theodore Schreiber; Cindy Grines; Apurva O. Badheka
• Keywords: Interquartile range; Fibrinolytic agent

Objective The aim of the study was to assess utilization catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) and its comparative effectiveness against systemic in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Background Contemporary real world data regarding outcomes comparing with CDT for PE is sparse. Methods We queried Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2010 2012 using ICD‐9‐CM diagnosis code 415.11, 415.13, 415.19 PE. used propensity score analysis compare between CDT. Primary outcome in‐hospital mortality. Secondary combined mortality intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Results Out 110,731 patients hospitalized PE, we identified 1,521 treated thrombolysis, which 1,169 received 352 After propensity‐matched comparison, primary secondary were significantly lower group compared (21.81% vs. 13.36%, OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36–0.85, P value = 0.007) (22.89% 0.52, 0.34–0.80, 0.003), respectively. median length stay [7 days, interquartile range (IQR) (5–9 days) 7 IQR (5–10 days), 0.17] not significant two groups. had higher cost hospitalization [$17,218, ($12,272–$23,906) $23,799, ($17,892–$35,338), < 0.001]. Multivariate increasing age, saddle cardiopulmonary arrest, Medicaid insurance as independent predictors Conclusions associated ICH. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.