Health science reports · 2024
Assessment of lytic therapy effect in patients with intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism for prevention of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: A randomized, double-blind trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mansouri Pejman, Rashidi Amir Mohsen, Mansouri Mohammad Hadi, Sadeghi Masoumeh, Zavar Reihaneh, Amirpour Afshin, Hashemi Seyedeh Melika, Taheri Marzieh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aims to compare the effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy and anticoagulation in preventing chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).
METHOD: A total of 60 patients with intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism (PE) were randomly assigned to receive either thrombolytic therapy (n = 30) or anticoagulation (n = 30).
RESULTS: Echocardiographic assessments demonstrated no significant differences between the two treatment approaches in terms of right ventricular size (RVS) (on discharge in thrombolytic group: 31.17 ± 3.43 vs. anticoagulant group: 32.73 ± 5.27, p = 0.912), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (on discharge in thrombolytic group: 17.66 ± 2.39 vs. anticoagulant group: 16.73 ± 2.93, p = 0.290), and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) (on discharge in thrombolytic group: 32.93 ± 9.73 vs. anticoagulant group: 34.46 ± 9.30, p = 0.840). However, significant changes were observed in all assessed parameters within each treatment group (p < 0.001). The 6-month follow-up showed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of CTEPH incidence (p = 0.781) or functional class of the patients (p = 0.135).
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, neither thrombolytic therapy nor anticoagulation demonstrated superiority over the other in reducing adverse outcomes associated with intermediate-high risk PE, including right ventricular size, SPAP, TAPSE, or CTEPH.
METHOD: A total of 60 patients with intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism (PE) were randomly assigned to receive either thrombolytic therapy (n = 30) or anticoagulation (n = 30).
RESULTS: Echocardiographic assessments demonstrated no significant differences between the two treatment approaches in terms of right ventricular size (RVS) (on discharge in thrombolytic group: 31.17 ± 3.43 vs. anticoagulant group: 32.73 ± 5.27, p = 0.912), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (on discharge in thrombolytic group: 17.66 ± 2.39 vs. anticoagulant group: 16.73 ± 2.93, p = 0.290), and systolic pulmonary artery pressure (SPAP) (on discharge in thrombolytic group: 32.93 ± 9.73 vs. anticoagulant group: 34.46 ± 9.30, p = 0.840). However, significant changes were observed in all assessed parameters within each treatment group (p < 0.001). The 6-month follow-up showed no significant difference between the two groups in terms of CTEPH incidence (p = 0.781) or functional class of the patients (p = 0.135).
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, neither thrombolytic therapy nor anticoagulation demonstrated superiority over the other in reducing adverse outcomes associated with intermediate-high risk PE, including right ventricular size, SPAP, TAPSE, or CTEPH.