Circulation· 2019Q1
Interventional Therapies for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Current Status and Principles for the Development of Novel Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
- 496citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2019year
Short summary
Two US FDA-cleared pharmacomechanical devices are now available for acute intermediate- and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), with more in development, prompting a need for evidence-based guidelines on their use.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Two pharmacomechanical devices for acute intermediate- and high-risk PE have received US FDA clearance.
- The document reviews current risk stratification tools and their limitations for PE.
- It discusses the risks and benefits of available interventional therapies for PE.
- Principles for future evidence development and the PE response team model are presented.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The technological landscape for management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE is rapidly evolving. Two interventional devices using pharmacomechanical means to recanalize the pulmonary arteries have recently been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing, and several others are in various stages of development. The purpose of this document is to clarify the current state of endovascular interventional therapy for acute PE and to provide considerations for evidence development for new devices that will define which patients with PE would derive the greatest net benefit from their use in various clinical settings. First, definitions and limitations of commonly used risk stratification tools for PE are reviewed. An adjudication of risks and benefits of available interventional therapies for PE follows. Next, considerations for optimal future evidence development in this field are presented in the context of the current US regulatory framework. Finally, the document concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons of the rapidly expanding PE response team model of care delivery.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Circulation, 2019 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Internal Medicine
Internal MedicineMedicine