Massive pulmonary embolism: surgical embolectomy versus thrombolytic therapy--should surgical indications be revisited?

The treatment of massive pulmonary embolism (PE) is a matter of debate. We present our institutional experience of patients suffering from massive PE with the aim of comparing the early results, the outcome and quality of life (QoL) between patients primarily assigned to either pulmonary surgical embolectomy (SE) or thrombolytic therapy (TL). A subgroup of patients (TS) with failed responses to TL requiring SE was separately analysed.

Risk stratification of normotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism

Treatment guidelines recommend strong consideration of thrombolysis in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) that present with arterial hypotension or shock because of the high risk of death in this setting. For haemodynamically stable patients with PE, the categorization of risk for subgroups may assist with decision-making regarding PE therapy. Clinical models [e.g. Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI)] may accurately identify those at low risk of overall death in the first 3 months after the diagnosis of PE, and such patients might benefit from an abbreviated hospital stay or outpatient therapy. Though some evidence suggests that a subset of high-risk normotensive patients with PE may have a reasonable risk to benefit ratio for thrombolytic therapy, single markers of right ventricular dysfunction (e.g. echocardiography, spiral computed tomography, or brain natriuretic peptide testing) and myocardial injury (e.g. cardiac troponin T or I testing) have an insufficient positive predictive value for PE-specific mortality to drive decision-making toward such therapy. Recommendations for outpatient treatment or thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE necessitate further development of prognostic models and conduct of clinical trials that assess various treatment strategies.

Intravenous magnesium for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Mortality and morbidity from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high. Intravenous magnesium started early after the onset of AMI is thought to be a promising adjuvant treatment. Conflicting results from earlier trials and meta-analyses warrant a systematic review of available evidence. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of intravenous magnesium versus placebo on early mortality and morbidity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2006), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2006) and EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2006), and the Chinese Biomedical Disk (CBM disk) (January 1978 to June 2006). Some core Chinese medical journals relevant to the cardiovascular field were hand searched from their starting date to the first-half year of 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials that compared intravenous magnesium with placebo in the presence or absence of fibrinolytic therapy in addition to routine treatment were eligible if they reported mortality and morbidity within 35 days of AMI onset. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the trial quality and extracted data using a standard form. Odds ratio (OR) were used to pool the effect if appropriate. Where heterogeneity of effects was found, clinical and methodological sources of this were explored. MAIN RESULTS: For early mortality where there was evidence of heterogeneity, a fixed-effect meta-analysis showed no difference between magnesium and placebo groups (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.04), while a random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant reduction comparing magnesium with placebo (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.82). Stratification by timing of treatment (< 6 hrs, 6+ hrs) reduced heterogeneity, and in both fixed-effect and random-effects models no significant effect of magnesium was found. In stratified analyses, early mortality was reduced for patients not treated with thrombolysis (OR=0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94 by random-effects model) and for those treated with less than 75 mmol of magnesium (OR=0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.70) in the magnesium compared with placebo groups.Meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes where there was no evidence of heterogeneity showed reductions in the odds of ventricular fibrillation (OR=0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96), but increases in the odds of profound hypotension (OR=1.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.19) and bradycardia (OR=1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.77) comparing magnesium with placebo. No difference was observed for heart block (OR=1.05, 95% CI 0.97-1.14). For those outcomes where there was evidence of heterogeneity, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects models showed that magnesium could decrease ventricular tachycardia (OR=0.45, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66 by fixed-effect model; OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84 by random-effects model) and severe arrhythmia needing treatment or Lown 2-5 (OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85 by fixed-effect model; OR=0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79 by random-effects model) compared with placebo. There was no difference on the effect of cardiogenic shock between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the likelihood of publication bias and marked heterogeneity of treatment effects, it is essential that the findings are interpreted cautiously. From the evidence reviewed here, we consider that: (1) it is unlikely that magnesium is beneficial in reducing mortality both in patients treated early and in patients treated late, and in patients already receiving thrombolytic therapy; (2) it is unlikely that magnesium will reduce mortality when used at high dose (>=75 mmol); (3) magnesium treatment may reduce the incidence of ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, severe arrhythmia needing treatment or Lown 2-5, but it may increase the incidence of profound hypotension, bradycardia and flushing; and (4) the areas of uncertainty regarding the effect of magnesium on mortality remain the effect of low dose treatment (< 75 mmol) and in patients not treate...

Safety and efficacy of thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase in older stroke patients.

Stroke is a common cause of death and persisting disability worldwide, and thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase is the only approved treatment for acute ischaemic stroke. Older age is the most important non-modifiable risk factor for stroke, and demographic changes are also resulting in an increasingly ageing population. However, clinical trial evidence for the use of intravenous alteplase is limited for the older age group where stroke incidence is highest. In this article, the current evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of intravenous thrombolytic therapy in stroke patients aged ≥80 years is critically analysed and the gap in current knowledge highlighted. In summary, intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients aged ≥80 years seems to be associated with less favourable clinical outcomes and higher mortality than in younger patients, which is consistent with the natural course in untreated patients. The risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage does not appear to be significantly higher in the elderly group, suggesting that intracranial bleeding complications are unlikely to outweigh the potential benefit in this age group. Overall, withholding thrombolytic treatment in ischaemic stroke on the basis of advanced age alone is no longer justifiable.