Comparing Real-World Outcomes of Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis and Catheter-Based Thrombectomy in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Post PEERLESS Analysis

BackgroundThe recently published PEERLESS trial compared catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, it included a low proportion of patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy (4.4%), leaving uncertainty about how CDT would perform relative to CBT in a real-world cohort with higher bleeding risk.AimsThis study aims to address this gap by comparing real-world outcomes of CDT and CBT in patients with acute PE.MethodsThis retrospective analysis included patients who underwent CDT and CBT at two tertiary care centers from January 2020 to January 2024. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline variables.ResultsA total of 162 (mean age 58 years, 45.7% women, 17.3% high-risk, 28% contraindication to lytics, 28% CDT, 72% CBT) patients were included, with 12.4% patients experiencing the primary outcome. There was no difference in the rates of the primary outcome between CBT versus CDT (11.2% vs. 15.2%, IPTW HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.27-2.38, p = 0.69). CBT was associated with a lower risk of hemodynamic decompensation (5% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.036), major bleeding (7.8% vs. 17.4%, IPTW HR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.07-0.95, p = 0.042) and ICH (0 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.024) compared to CDT.ConclusionAmong a real-world cohort of patients with acute PE with higher bleeding risk than PEERLESS undergoing catheter-based therapies, CBT was associated with a lower rate of hemodynamic deterioration, major bleeding, and ICH with similar rate of primary composite outcome when compared with CDT. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.