Thrombolysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: A meta-analysis

- This is a meta-analysis of RCTs with thrombolysis in normotensive PE patients
- Thrombolysis increases major bleeding and ICH compared with heparin
- In these patients, thrombolysis does not reduce mortality compared with heparin
- The risk/benefit imbalance seems to be higher with tenecteplase than with alteplase

IntroductionThe role of thrombolysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the effect of thrombolysis in these patients.Materials and MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized studies comparing thrombolysis and heparin for the initial treatment of hemodynamically stable PE patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. NNH to cause a major bleeding (MB) or an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and NNT to avoid one death were also calculated.ResultsEleven studies (1833 patients) were included seven with rt-PA, three with tenecteplase and one with urokinase. Patients randomized to thrombolysis had a significant increased risk for MB (5.9% vs 1.9%; OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.68-4.76, I2 18.7%) and an increased risk for ICH (1.74% versus 0.6%; OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.98-5.71, I2 0%) and for fatal bleeding (1.3% versus 0.54%; OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.73-4.61, I2 0%). A not-significant reduction for all-cause death (1.74% vs 2.51%; OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37-1.26, I2 0%) and a significant reduction for recurrent PE (1.1% vs 2.5%; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.92, I2 0%) in favor of thrombolysis compared with heparin was found. NNH to cause a MB or an ICH were 27 and 91 patients, respectively. NNT to avoid one death was 125 patients.ConclusionsDue to increased risk for MB and ICH with no evidence of reduction in mortality, thrombolysis should not be used for most normotensive PE patients.