In Patients with Submassive Pulmonary Embolism, does Catheter Direct Thrombolysis Reduce Mortality Compared to Anticoagulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: PE is a life-threatening condition leading to obstructed blood flow and compromised gas exchange. Prompt recognition and treatment are crucial to improving outcomes and reducing mortality, particularly in patients with submassive PE. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in enhancing treatment protocols for PE compared to standard anticoagulation. Methods: A literature review was conducted using the PubMed database, focusing on articles related to pulmonary embolism, anticoagulation, and catheter thrombolysis from 2019 to 2024. The search, refined by MeSH terms and Boolean operators, yielded 192 results, narrowed down to 16 relevant randomized control trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews. Studies were selected based on specific criteria, such as using PRISMA guidelines, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Cochrane bias risk assessment. Results: Ultimately four articles were reviewed three of which were meta-analyses that used PRISMA, Cochrane methodology, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and one ongoing randomized control trial. These studies showed that CDT may decrease in-hospital mortality associated with submassive PE. Discussion: The studies included in the paper consistently found that CDT was associated with a lower risk of death than systemic thrombolysis in patients with submassive PE. While CDT may show a significant reduction in in-hospital and short-term mortality compared to anticoagulation alone, the studies also highlighted gaps in evidence, particularly in establishing CDT as a first-line treatment. Ongoing trials are expected to provide more conclusive data on the long-term efficacy and safety of CDT.
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 | 0.012 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".