Evaluating the hemodynamic impact of saddle versus non-saddle pulmonary embolism: insights from a thrombectomy cohort.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic impact and clinical outcomes of saddle vs non-saddle pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and outcomes among patients with saddle and non-saddle PE within a cohort referred for catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) with invasive hemodynamic assessments. Patients who underwent CBT between August 2020 and January 2024 were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a low cardiac index (CI less than 2.2 L/min/m²). Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients (84 intermediate risk, 23 high-risk; mean age 58 years, 47.6% female) were included in the study, with 44 patients having saddle PE and 63 having non-saddle PE. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics between saddle and non-saddle PE, including rates of high-risk PE (25% vs 16%, P = .24), rates of RV dysfunction, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (55 vs 53 mm Hg, P = .74), mean pulmonary artery pressure (34 mm Hg vs 33 mm Hg), low cardiac index (56% vs 51%, P = .64), rates of normotensive shock (27% vs 20%, P = .44), or Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock scores (4.5 vs 4.7, P = .25). Additionally, 30-day mortality (6% vs 5%, P = .69), ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing CBT, there were no significant differences in invasive hemodynamic parameters or clinical outcomes between those with saddle and non-saddle PE.
