MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Randomized Controlled Trial of Mechanical Thrombectomy With Anticoagulation Versus Anticoagulation Alone for Acute Intermediate-High Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Outcomes From the STORM-PE Trial

2025· article· en· W4415823663 on OpenAlexaff
R. Lookstein, Stavros Konstantinides, Ido Weinberg, Suhail Dohad, Zachary Rosol, Grzegorz Kopeć, John M. Moriarty, Sahil A. Parikh, Andrew Holden, Richard N. Channick, Braedon McDonald, Khanjan Nagarsheth, Kei Yamada, Rachel Rosovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPulmonary embolismClinical trialStroke (engine)Atrial fibrillationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism (PE) have an elevated right ventricular (RV) to left ventricular (LV) diameter ratio and are at risk of early clinical decompensation and mortality. Reperfusion therapy aims to rapidly relieve acute RV pressure overload and to normalize hemodynamics. STORM-PE (A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Anticoagulation Alone Versus Anticoagulation Plus Mechanical Aspiration With the Indigo Aspiration System for the Treatment of Intermediate-High Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism) is the first reported randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy and to evaluate the safety of mechanical thrombectomy, specifically computer-assisted vacuum thrombectomy (CAVT) with anticoagulation compared to anticoagulation alone. METHODS: STORM-PE is an international randomized controlled trial with 1:1 randomization to CAVT with anticoagulation or anticoagulation alone. Eligible adults had acute-onset (symptoms ≤14 days), intermediate-high risk PE and were normotensive, with an RV/LV ratio ≥1.0 on computed tomographic pulmonary angiography and elevated cardiac biomarkers. The primary end-point analysis tested for a difference between groups for the change in RV/LV ratio at 48 hours, assessed by a blinded independent imaging core laboratory. Secondary end points included major adverse events within 7 days (a composite of clinical deterioration necessitating rescue therapy, PE-related mortality, symptomatic recurrent PE, and major bleeding), adjudicated by an external clinical events committee. Additional outcomes included change in vital signs and core laboratory–assessed pulmonary artery obstruction at 48 hours. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients enrolled across 22 sites were randomized to CAVT (n=47) or anticoagulation alone (n=53). Baseline characteristics were comparable between arms. At 48 hours, mean reduction in RV/LV ratio was greater for CAVT (0.52±0.37) than anticoagulation (0.24±0.40), a difference of 0.27 (95% CI, 0.12–0.43; P <0.001). Refined modified and modified Miller scores exhibited greater changes for CAVT than anticoagulation alone at 48 hours ( P <0.001). Early normalization of vital signs within 48 hours was more frequent after CAVT. The major adverse event rate within 7 days was not different between groups (CAVT, 4.3% versus anticoagulation, 7.5%; P =0.681). Two PE-related deaths occurred in the CAVT arm. CONCLUSIONS: CAVT was superior to anticoagulation alone in reducing RV/LV ratio within 48 hours in patients with intermediate-high risk PE, accompanied by earlier normalization of vital signs and major adverse event rates comparable to those for anticoagulation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05684796.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207