Outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus systemic thrombolysis in the treatment of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus systemic thrombolysis (ST) in the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched to collect the literature on the comparison of the results of CDT and ST in the treatment of PE from the beginning of their records to May 2020, and meta-analysis was performed by STATA software (version 15.1). Using standardized data-collection forms, the authors screened the studies and independently extracted data, and assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Cohort studies that examined the following results were included in the current study: in-hospital mortality, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, intracranial hemorrhage rate, the incidence of shock, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS A total of eight articles, with 13,242 participants, involving 3962 participants in the CDT group and 9280 participants in the ST group were included. CDT compared with ST in the treatment of PE can significantly affect in-hospital mortality rate [odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30–0.56, P < 0.05], all-cause bleeding rate (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04–1.39, P = 0.012), gastrointestinal bleeding rate (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.13–1.81, P = 0.003), the incidence of shock (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37–0.57, P < 0.05), and hospital length of stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.07–0.25, P < 0.05]. However, there was no significant effect on intracranial hemorrhage rate in patients with PE (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.47–1.03, P = 0.070). CONCLUSIONS CDT is a viable alternative to ST in the treatment of PE, as it can significantly reduce in-hospital mortality rate, all-cause bleeding rate, gastrointestinal bleeding rate, and incidence of shock. However, CDT may prolong hospital length of stay to a certain extent. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CDT and ST in the treatment of acute PE and other clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.071 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".