Efficacy and safety of low-dose thrombolysis in intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis
- Journal
- Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine (Q1)
- Published
- 13 August 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Chen Zhu, Wei Chen, Lingcong Wang, Xi Xing
- PMID
- 42661738
- DOI
- 10.3389/fcvm.2026.1862385
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine (paper of the day, 31 August 2026): Low‑dose thrombolysis meta‑analysis, intermediate‑risk PE relevance
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of low-dose thrombolysis in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to December 6, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized controlled studies, and cohort studies investigating low-dose thrombolysis for intermediate-risk PE were included. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis was performed using Stata software (version 16.0) to calculate pooled estimates of mortality, bleeding incidence, and recurrence rates. The efficacy and safety of low-dose thrombolysis were compared with those of anticoagulation alone or full-dose thrombolysis. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 13 studies (1,018 patients with intermediate-risk PE). Low-dose thrombolysis yielded a 1-month and 1-year mortality of 2% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03; 0.00-0.05), recurrence of 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.02), major bleeding of 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03), and minor bleeding of 7% (95% CI: 0.05-0.10). Subgroup analysis showed ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (USAT) had 1-month and 1-year mortality rates of 2% (95% CI: 0.01-0.04) and 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03), respectively, vs. 1% (95% CI: 0.00-0.03) and 7% (95% CI: 0.01-0.16) for low-dose systemic thrombolysis. Compared to anticoagulation alone or full-dose thrombolysis, low-dose systemic thrombolysis showed no significant differences in mortality or recurrence, but had lower bleeding risk than full-dose thrombolysis (RD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.44 to -0.01). USAT significantly reduced 1-month mortality vs. anticoagulation alone (RD = -0.09, 95% CI: -0.13 to -0.04); however, this stems from a single non-randomized study requiring RCT validation. Bleeding rates showed no significant difference. CONCLUSION: In patients with intermediate-risk PE, low-dose thrombolysis yields low mortality and recurrence rates with an acceptable bleeding risk. Compared with full-dose thrombolysis, it offers a safety advantage by reducing the incidence of bleeding; however, its comparative efficacy regarding mortality and recurrence remains undetermined and may be equivalent. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261284475.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.