Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026
Prehospital Thrombolysis: A Manual from Berlin
Published on: November 26, 2013
Thrombolysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis
Antoni Riera-Mestre1, Cecilia Becattini, Michela Giustozzi
1Internal Medicine, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat Barcelona Spain. ariera@bellvitgehospital.cat
Introduction:
The role of thrombolysis in hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the effect of thrombolysis in these patients.
Materials And Methods:
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized studies comparing thrombolysis and heparin for the initial treatment of hemodynamically stable PE patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. NNH to cause a major bleeding (MB) or an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and NNT to avoid one death were also calculated.
Results:
Eleven studies (1833 patients) were included seven with rt-PA, three with tenecteplase and one with urokinase. Patients randomized to thrombolysis had a significant increased risk for MB (5.9% vs 1.9%; OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.68-4.76, I2 18.7%) and an increased risk for ICH (1.74% versus 0.6%; OR 2.36, 95% CI 0.98-5.71, I2 0%) and for fatal bleeding (1.3% versus 0.54%; OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.73-4.61, I2 0%). A not-significant reduction for all-cause death (1.74% vs 2.51%; OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.37-1.26, I2 0%) and a significant reduction for recurrent PE (1.1% vs 2.5%; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.92, I2 0%) in favor of thrombolysis compared with heparin was found. NNH to cause a MB or an ICH were 27 and 91 patients, respectively. NNT to avoid one death was 125 patients.
Conclusions:
Due to increased risk for MB and ICH with no evidence of reduction in mortality, thrombolysis should not be used for most normotensive PE patients.
