 |
|
Rebuttal
Gabriel Thabut, MD;
Damien Logeart, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2204-2205.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
The proponents of thrombolysis for patients with PE and RV dysfunction stress the high mortality rates of such patients without treatment and the well-proven hemodynamic benefit of thrombolysis in this setting. Conversely, the opponents emphasize the doubtful prognostic significance of RV dysfunction and the lack of evidence of clinical benefit and potentially life-threatening adverse effects of thrombolysis.
To move forward the debate, Goldhaber has long championed the implementation of a large international trial comparing thrombolysis and heparin in patients with acute PE and RV dysfunction.1-2 At the same time, the proponents of this treatment stress the difficulties in launching such a large-scale trial; the largest randomized controlled trial with published results to date included only 256 patients. Funding support and recruitment difficulties are the 2 arguments commonly used against launching a large-scale trial.3
French investigators plan to launch a multicenter trial comparing thrombolysis and . . . [Full Text of this Article]
RELATED ARTICLES
Thrombolytic Therapy for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism Who Are Hemodynamically Stable But Have Right Ventricular Dysfunction: Pro
Samuel Z. Goldhaber
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(19):2197-2199.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Thrombolysis for Pulmonary Embolism in Patients With Right Ventricular Dysfunction: Con
Gabriel Thabut and Damien Logeart
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(19):2200-2203.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Rebuttal
Samuel Z. Goldhaber
Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(19):2204.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
