Randomized Controlled Trial of Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Catheter-directed Thrombolysis for Acute Hemodynamically Stable Pulmonary Embolism: Rationale and Design of the PEERLESS Study.

BACKGROUND The identification of hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism (PE) patients who may benefit from advanced treatment beyond anticoagulation is unclear. However, when intervention is deemed necessary by the PE patient's care team, data to select the most advantageous interventional treatment option are lacking. Limiting factors include major bleeding risks with systemic and locally delivered thrombolytics and the overall lack of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data for interventional treatment strategies. Considering the expansion of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) model, corresponding rise in interventional treatment, and number of thrombolytic and non-thrombolytic catheter-directed devices coming to market, robust evidence is needed to identify the safest and most effective interventional option for patients. METHODS The PEERLESS study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05111613) is a currently enrolling multinational RCT comparing large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with the FlowTriever System (Inari Medical, Irvine, CA) vs catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). A total of 550 hemodynamically stable PE patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and additional clinical risk factors will undergo 1:1 randomization. Up to 150 additional patients with absolute thrombolytic contraindications may be enrolled into a non-randomized MT cohort for separate analysis. The primary endpoint will be assessed at hospital discharge or 7 days post procedure, whichever is sooner, and is a composite of the following clinical outcomes constructed as a hierarchal win ratio: 1) all-cause mortality, 2) intracranial hemorrhage, 3) major bleeding, 4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and 5) intensive care unit admission and length of stay. The first 4 components of the win ratio will be adjudicated by a Clinical Events Committee, and all components will be assessed individually as secondary endpoints. Other key secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality and readmission within 30 days of procedure and device- and drug-related serious adverse events through the 30-day visit. IMPLICATIONS PEERLESS is the first RCT to compare two different interventional treatment strategies for hemodynamically stable PE and results will inform strategy selection after the physician or PERT determines advanced therapy is warranted

Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep-Vein Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: The post-thrombotic syndrome frequently develops in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis despite treatment with anticoagulant therapy. Pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (hereafter pharmacomechanical thrombolysis ) rapidly removes thrombus and is hypothesized to reduce the risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned 692 patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis to receive either anticoagulation alone (control group) or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (catheter-mediated or device-mediated intrathrombus delivery of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and thrombus aspiration or maceration, with or without stenting). The primary outcome was development of the post-thrombotic syndrome between 6 and 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Between 6 and 24 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients with the post-thrombotic syndrome (47% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 48% in the control group; risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.11; P=0.56). Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis led to more major bleeding events within 10 days (1.7% vs. 0.3% of patients, P=0.049), but no significant difference in recurrent venous thromboembolism was seen over the 24-month follow-up period (12% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 8% in the control group, P=0.09). Moderate-to-severe post-thrombotic syndrome occurred in 18% of patients in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group versus 24% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P=0.04). Severity scores for the post-thrombotic syndrome were lower in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group than in the control group at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up (P CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis, the addition of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation did not result in a lower risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome but did result in a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ATTRACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00790335 .)

Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease Consensus Definitions From Peripheral Academic Research Consortium (PARC)

The lack of consistent definitions and nomenclature across clinical trials of novel devices, drugs, or biologics poses a significant barrier to accrual of knowledge in and across peripheral artery disease therapies and technologies. Recognizing this problem, the Peripheral Academic Research Consortium, together with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, has developed a series of pragmatic consensus definitions for patients being treated for peripheral artery disease affecting the lower extremities. These consensus definitions include the clinical presentation, anatomic depiction, interventional outcomes, surrogate imaging and physiological follow-up, and clinical outcomes of patients with lower-extremity peripheral artery disease. Consistent application of these definitions in clinical trials evaluating novel revascularization technologies should result in more efficient regulatory evaluation and best practice guidelines to inform clinical decisions in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease

Randomized Controlled Trial of Mechanical Thrombectomy vs Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Hemodynamically Stable Pulmonary Embolism: Rationale and Design of the PEERLESS Study

BACKGROUND: The identification of hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism (PE) patients who may benefit from advanced treatment beyond anticoagulation is unclear. However, when intervention is deemed necessary by the PE patient\u27s care team, data to select the most advantageous interventional treatment option are lacking. Limiting factors include major bleeding risks with systemic and locally delivered thrombolytics and the overall lack of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data for interventional treatment strategies. Considering the expansion of the pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) model, corresponding rise in interventional treatment, and number of thrombolytic and nonthrombolytic catheter-directed devices coming to market, robust evidence is needed to identify the safest and most effective interventional option for patients. METHODS: The PEERLESS study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05111613) is a currently enrolling multinational RCT comparing large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with the FlowTriever System (Inari Medical, Irvine, CA) vs catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT). A total of 550 hemodynamically stable PE patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and additional clinical risk factors will undergo 1:1 randomization. Up to 150 additional patients with absolute thrombolytic contraindications may be enrolled into a nonrandomized MT cohort for separate analysis. The primary end point will be assessed at hospital discharge or 7 days post procedure, whichever is sooner, and is a composite of the following clinical outcomes constructed as a hierarchal win ratio: (1) all-cause mortality, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) major bleeding, (4) clinical deterioration and/or escalation to bailout, and (5) intensive care unit admission and length of stay. The first 4 components of the win ratio will be adjudicated by a Clinical Events Committee, and all components will be assessed individually as secondary end points. Other key secondary end points include all-cause mortality and readmission within 30 days of procedure and device- and drug-related serious adverse events through the 30-day visit. IMPLICATIONS: PEERLESS is the first RCT to compare 2 different interventional treatment strategies for hemodynamically stable PE and results will inform strategy selection after the physician or PERT determines advanced therapy is warranted

Visceral Artery Aneurysms: Diagnosis, Surveillance, and Treatment.

Visceral artery aneurysms (VAAs) are a rare, but serious clinical entity as rupture confers a high rate of mortality. Data regarding the prevalence, treatment, and prognosis of VAAs is largely from case series, as true randomized trials are lacking. The incidence of VAAs has risen over the decades with advances in imaging technology, availability, and utilization. Even in the presence of symptoms, the prompt diagnosis of VAAs may be challenging as symptoms are often nonspecific and varied. Although there are no definitive treatment guidelines, asymptomatic VAAs require treatment in the following scenarios: when the aneurysm diameter is greater than 2 cm, when identified during pregnancy, when multiple aneurysms are present, and in the case of hepatic transplant. Similar to therapeutic trends in other vascular beds, advances in endovascular devices and techniques have driven an endovascular first approach for the treatment of VAAs. However, although the success rates of endovascular repair are impressive, surgical intervention is still necessary in treating centers. This paper reviews the pathophysiology, clinical features, anatomic characteristics, and management strategies required for the effective diagnosis and treatment of VAAs

Development of a research agenda for skeletal intervention: Proceedings of a multidisciplinary consensus panel

A multidisciplinary spine intervention research consensus panel was convened to develop a prioritized research agenda for skeletal intervention. The panel recommended that the priority clinical research area was to develop a prospective randomized study of interventional therapy versus medical management for osteoporotic compression fracture, with crossover to intervention for those who fail medical therapy. Accordingly, the research needs identified by the skeletal intervention research consensus panel will be a subject of multidisciplinary trial development efforts facilitated by CAIRR in the years ahead. © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008