How the results of a randomized trial of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation alone for submassive pulmonary embolism would affect patient and physician decision making: Report of an online survey

2Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The purpose is to investigate how the outcomes of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus anticoagulation alone for acute submassive PE would affect clinical decision-making. An online survey was sent to the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium members and the North American Thrombosis Forum members. Participants rated their preference for CDT on a 5-point scale in 5 RCT outcome scenarios. In all scenarios, subjects in the CDT group walked farther at 1-year than those in the anticoagulation group. A total of 83.3% of patients and 67.1% of physicians preferred CDT (score > 3) if it improved exercise capacity and did not increase bleeding. In every scenario, patients scored CDT higher than physicians (p < 0.05 for each). Bleeding and clinical deterioration were independently associated with the mean score. Patients’ age, gender, and history of PE did not influence CDT scores (p = 0.083, p = 0.071, p = 0.257 respectively). For patients, 60% > 60 years, 65.5% < 60 years, 57.1% of men, and 66.3% of women preferred CDT across scenarios. In conclusion, the majority of respondents would choose CDT if it improves long-term exercise capacity and does not increase bleeding. Patients appear to accept a higher bleeding risk than physicians if CDT improves long-term exercise capacity.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Taslakian, B., Li, C., Goldhaber, S. Z., Mikkelsen, K. Z., Horowitz, J. M., Kabrhel, C., … Sista, A. K. (2019). How the results of a randomized trial of catheter-directed thrombolysis versus anticoagulation alone for submassive pulmonary embolism would affect patient and physician decision making: Report of an online survey. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8020215

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free