SynthesisOpen heart2026
Catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation for intermediate-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCatheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has emerged as a reperfusion strategy for intermediate-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), potentially improving thrombus resolution while reducing bleeding risk compared with systemic thrombolysis. However, evidence comparing CDT with anticoagulation alone remains inconsistent.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of CDT compared with anticoagulation alone in intermediate-risk and high-risk PE.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and ProQuest were searched through 8 May 2026. Randomised and observational studies comparing CDT with anticoagulation alone were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major bleeding. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% CIs.
results18 studies involving 16 126 patients were included. CDT was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with anticoagulation alone (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.54; p<0.0001; I²=0%). No statistically significant difference was observed in major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.71; p=0.1259; I²=51.3%), and trim-and-fill analysis yielded a similarly non-significant result (adjusted RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.79). CDT and anticoagulation alone showed comparable outcomes for PE-related mortality, intracranial haemorrhage, delta right ventricle (RV)/left ventricle (LV) ratio, delta Thrombus Burden Score or systolic pulmonary artery pressure. Meta-regression identified that a greater baseline RV/LV ratio was associated with attenuation of the observed mortality benefit.
conclusionsCDT was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with anticoagulant alone in intermediate-risk and high-risk PE without a statistically significant increase in intracranial haemorrhage. Larger adequately powered randomised trials are needed to define the role of CDT in acute PE. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261373193.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42580844What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.