Thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism: Are we overdoing it?

Aim and Methods: We aimed to study the clinical data and outcome of patients admitted in our center with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) over a 5-year period from May 2013 to April 2018. The main outcome data included were: in - hospital bleeding, in - hospital right ventricular (RV) function improvement, pulmonary arterial hypertension improvement, duration of hospital stay, and 30- and 90-day mortality. Results: A total of 114 (69 m, 55 f) patients with the mean age of 55 ± 15 years were included. Patients who had involvement of central pulmonary trunk called as “Central PE” group (n = 82) and others as “Peripheral PE” group (n = 32). There were more women in the peripheral PE group (53.1% vs. 34.1%, P = 0.05), while RBBB (22% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.02) and RV dysfunction (59.8% vs. 25%, P = 0.002) were noted more in the central PE group. Systemic thrombolysis was done in 53 patients (49 central, 4 peripheral), of which only 3 had hypotension and 28 patients were in the Intermediate-high risk group. The overall inhospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortalities were 3.6, 13.2, and 22.8%, respectively. Bleeding was significantly higher in the thrombolysis group compared to the nonthrombolysis group (18.9% vs. 0, P = 0.0003). However, improvement in pulmonary hypertension was noted more in thrombolysis group compared to nonthrombolytic group (49% vs. 21.2%, P = 0.01). Conclusion: This retrospective data from a tertiary center in South India showed that short- and mid-term mortality of patients with PE still remains high. The high nonguideline use of thrombolysis has been reflected in the increased bleeding noted in our study.