Evidence Hub

Large-Bore Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis in the Management of Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Primary Results of the PEERLESS Randomized Controlled Trial

W. Jaber, C. Gonsalves, Stefan Stortecky, Samuel Horr, O. Pappas, Ripal T. Gandhi, Keith Pereira, Jay Giri et al.

Circulation, 2024

550 participants · 141 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are a lack of randomized controlled trial data comparing outcomes of different catheter-based interventions for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. METHODS: PEERLESS is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that enrolled 550 patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism with right ventricular dilatation and additional clinical risk factors randomized 1:1 to treatment with large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). The primary end point was a hierarchal win ratio composite of the following (assessed at the sooner of hospital discharge or 7 days after the procedure): (1) all-cause mortality, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) major bleeding, (4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and (5) postprocedural intensive care unit admission and length of stay. Assessments at the 24-hour visit included respiratory rate, modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score, New York Heart Association classification, right ventricle/left ventricle ratio reduction, and right ventricular function. End points through 30 days included total hospital stay, all-cause readmission, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred significantly less frequently with LBMT compared with CDT (win ratio, 5.01 [95% CI, 3.68–6.97]; P24 hours (19.3% versus 64.5%). There were no significant differences in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding between strategies or in a secondary win…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 550 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free