Proposed Article Structure
This article is organized around the clinical problem of intermediate-risk acute pulmonary embolism, the rationale for catheter-based clot removal, the design of the multicenter retrospective cohort study, the main efficacy findings, the limitations that shape interpretation, and the practical implications for pulmonary embolism response teams and frontline clinicians.
Highlights
Early mechanical thrombectomy performed within 12 hours of pulmonary embolism diagnosis was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in in-hospital mortality compared with delayed intervention.
Patients treated early had larger reductions in pulmonary artery systolic pressure and mean pulmonary artery pressure, suggesting more rapid hemodynamic unloading of the right ventricle.
Early intervention was also associated with a lower rate of intubation, a clinically meaningful finding in intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism where respiratory deterioration often precedes overt shock.
The study adds useful real-world evidence but remains limited by its retrospective design, potential confounding by indication, and lack of long-term outcome data.
Background
Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Among patients who present without frank hemodynamic collapse but demonstrate evidence of right ventricular strain, myocardial injury, or both, clinicians face a difficult management question: who should receive escalation beyond anticoagulation, and when should that escalation occur?
This population is commonly referred to as intermediate-risk PE, although definitions vary somewhat across studies and guideline documents. In practice, these are patients who are not hypotensive at presentation but show signs of clinically important cardiopulmonary stress. Their short-term course can be highly variable. Some stabilize with anticoagulation alone, while others deteriorate with worsening hypoxemia, rising right-sided pressures, progressive right ventricular dysfunction, or the need for vasopressors and mechanical ventilation.
Systemic thrombolysis can reduce hemodynamic decompensation in selected patients, but its use is constrained by bleeding risk, particularly intracranial hemorrhage. As a result, catheter-directed therapies, including mechanical thrombectomy, have been increasingly adopted. These procedures aim to remove obstructive thrombus rapidly, reduce right ventricular afterload, and improve pulmonary perfusion without exposing the patient to full-dose systemic fibrinolysis.
Yet one of the most practical unanswered questions is timing. If mechanical thrombectomy is chosen, should it be performed as early as possible after diagnosis, or can it be deferred while observing the response to anticoagulation? Evidence addressing this issue is limited. The study by Chiang and colleagues attempts to fill that gap by comparing early versus delayed thrombectomy in patients with intermediate-risk PE treated across five large academic hospitals.
Study Design and Methods
Design and setting
This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at five large academic hospitals. The analysis included 290 patients with intermediate-risk acute PE who underwent mechanical thrombectomy.
Population
The study focused on patients classified as having intermediate-risk PE. Although the abstract does not provide a full operational definition, the authors adjusted for disease severity using both the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock score, suggesting an effort to account for baseline risk heterogeneity. Patients with high-risk PE and frank shock were not the target population of this analysis.
Exposure of interest
The main comparison was the timing of mechanical thrombectomy relative to PE diagnosis. Early intervention (EI) was defined as thrombectomy performed less than 12 hours after diagnosis. Delayed intervention (DI) was defined as thrombectomy performed 12 hours or more after diagnosis.
Among the 290 included patients, 179 patients (61.7%) underwent early intervention and 111 patients (38.3%) underwent delayed intervention.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in pulmonary artery pressures and the need for intubation. These secondary endpoints are clinically relevant because they reflect procedural hemodynamic effect and early respiratory deterioration, both central issues in intermediate-risk PE management.
Statistical approach
The investigators used generalized estimated equation modeling to compare the odds of in-hospital mortality between the early and delayed intervention groups, while adjusting for PE severity and other confounders. Specifically, adjustment included the PESI and Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock scores.
Because the study is retrospective and treatment timing was not randomized, adjusted analysis is essential. Even so, residual confounding remains a major consideration, particularly because clinicians may delay thrombectomy for reasons not fully captured in structured data, such as evolving symptoms, institutional workflow, transfer logistics, contraindications, or initial response to anticoagulation.
Key Results
Primary outcome: in-hospital mortality
Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was 7.3% in the early intervention group (13 of 179 patients) and 10.8% in the delayed intervention group (12 of 111 patients), a difference that was not statistically significant (p = 0.39).
After adjustment for illness severity and confounders, timing of thrombectomy still did not significantly influence in-hospital mortality. The reported odds ratio was 1.80, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.82 to 3.95 and a p value of 0.14. As reported in the abstract, this indicates no statistically significant mortality benefit associated with earlier intervention.
The point estimate above 1.0 deserves careful interpretation. In a nonrandomized study, a point estimate can reflect residual confounding, model specification, or unmeasured differences between groups rather than a true harmful effect. The wide confidence interval, which crosses 1.0 and extends in both directions, reinforces the uncertainty around the mortality estimate. In practical terms, this study does not support a clear mortality advantage or disadvantage for performing thrombectomy within 12 hours rather than later.
Hemodynamic outcomes
Although mortality was unchanged, the hemodynamic findings favored early intervention. Patients undergoing early thrombectomy experienced greater reductions in pulmonary artery systolic pressure compared with those treated later: -25.8% (17.0) versus -18.9% (17.1), with p = 0.020.
A similar pattern was observed for mean pulmonary artery pressure: -26.8% (17.7) in the early intervention group versus -20.2% (19.7) in the delayed group, with p = 0.016.
These findings are biologically plausible. Earlier clot extraction would be expected to reduce pulmonary vascular obstruction sooner, decrease right ventricular afterload, and improve forward flow before more prolonged right ventricular strain and gas exchange impairment develop. For clinicians, these pressure reductions matter because they represent a mechanistic signal that early thrombectomy may more effectively unload the pulmonary circulation.
Respiratory deterioration and intubation
One of the most clinically actionable findings was the lower rate of intubation in the early intervention group. Intubation occurred in 8.9% of patients receiving early thrombectomy (16 of 179) compared with 18% of those receiving delayed thrombectomy (20 of 111), with p = 0.028.
This difference is important. In acute PE, endotracheal intubation is often a marker of significant cardiopulmonary deterioration and can itself worsen hemodynamics by increasing intrathoracic pressure, reducing venous return, and precipitating right ventricular failure in vulnerable patients. If earlier thrombectomy truly reduces the need for mechanical ventilation, that could represent a meaningful patient-centered advantage even in the absence of a demonstrable mortality signal.
Clinical Interpretation
The study suggests that for intermediate-risk PE selected for mechanical thrombectomy, earlier treatment may not improve survival to hospital discharge, but it may improve near-term physiology and reduce escalation to intubation. This distinction is clinically relevant because mortality in intermediate-risk PE is lower than in high-risk PE, making survival differences more difficult to detect, especially in a cohort of 290 patients.
In contrast, hemodynamic and respiratory endpoints may be more sensitive to treatment timing. Right ventricular strain is a time-dependent process. Prolonged pressure overload can lead to worsening tricuspid regurgitation, reduced left ventricular preload, increased myocardial oxygen demand, and progressive hypoxemia. It is therefore credible that early intervention would show measurable benefit in pulmonary pressures and respiratory stability before any mortality signal becomes detectable.
At the bedside, these results support a nuanced message rather than a simple mandate. They do not justify routine urgent thrombectomy for every patient with intermediate-risk PE. However, for patients already selected for thrombectomy by a pulmonary embolism response team, prolonged delay may forfeit some of the potential physiologic advantages of clot removal.
How This Fits With Current Evidence and Guidelines
Contemporary guidelines generally recommend anticoagulation as the foundation of therapy for intermediate-risk PE, reserving systemic thrombolysis or catheter-based interventions for selected patients with clinical worsening, high-risk features, or contraindications to thrombolysis. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines emphasized risk stratification using hemodynamics, right ventricular dysfunction, and biomarkers, while advising against routine primary systemic thrombolysis in intermediate-risk PE because bleeding risk often outweighs benefit in unselected patients.
Mechanical thrombectomy has gained momentum because it offers a non-thrombolytic reperfusion strategy. Prior device studies and registries have reported improvements in right ventricular to left ventricular ratio, pulmonary pressures, and symptoms, but most were single-arm studies without randomized comparison of timing strategies. Thus, the present study contributes a valuable piece of evidence: among patients already undergoing thrombectomy, earlier treatment may be associated with better physiologic decongestion and less need for intubation.
Still, the findings should not be overextended. The study does not answer whether thrombectomy is superior to anticoagulation alone in stable intermediate-risk PE, nor whether a universal early-intervention strategy improves long-term outcomes such as recurrent PE, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, functional status, or quality of life.
Strengths
The study has several strengths. First, it addresses a clinically important and underexplored question that is highly relevant to hospital systems using PE response teams. Second, the multicenter design improves external relevance compared with a single-center experience. Third, the inclusion of severity adjustment using PESI and Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock scores strengthens the analysis by accounting for baseline risk differences. Fourth, the examination of hemodynamic and respiratory endpoints provides a broader view of treatment effect beyond mortality alone.
Limitations
Several limitations temper interpretation. The retrospective design introduces potential selection bias and confounding by indication. Timing of thrombectomy is not random; patients may undergo delayed intervention because of transfer delays, diagnostic uncertainty, evolving symptoms, procedural availability, initial attempts at conservative management, or comorbid conditions. Some of these factors may correlate with outcomes but not be fully captured in the dataset.
The abstract does not specify the thrombectomy devices used, procedural techniques, use of adjunctive thrombolytics, or operator experience across centers. These factors may influence both timing and outcomes. Similarly, details regarding anticoagulation regimen, biomarker profile, clot burden, right ventricular imaging parameters, oxygen requirements, and reasons for intubation are not provided in the abstract.
The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, an important but relatively blunt outcome for intermediate-risk PE. This may have limited sensitivity to detect benefits of a strategy that primarily improves physiology and prevents escalation rather than directly reducing death. The sample size may also be insufficient for a mortality comparison, as reflected by the wide confidence interval around the adjusted odds ratio.
Finally, there are no reported long-term outcomes. For a condition that can lead to persistent exercise limitation, right ventricular dysfunction, and chronic thromboembolic disease, post-discharge follow-up would be highly informative.
Practical Implications for Clinicians and PE Response Teams
For centers that already use mechanical thrombectomy in selected intermediate-risk PE, this study suggests that unnecessary procedural delay should be avoided when a decision to intervene has been made. Earlier treatment may produce greater pulmonary artery pressure reduction and lower the likelihood of intubation.
That said, the results do not support abandoning careful patient selection. Many patients with intermediate-risk PE improve with anticoagulation alone, and the balance of benefit, procedural risk, resource use, and operator expertise still matters. The best candidates for early thrombectomy may be those with worsening hypoxemia, substantial right ventricular strain, rising biomarkers, increasing oxygen needs, or early signs of decompensation despite hemodynamic stability.
These findings also reinforce the value of structured multidisciplinary decision-making. Pulmonary embolism response teams can help identify patients at risk for deterioration, standardize risk assessment, and minimize avoidable delays once an interventional strategy has been selected.
Conclusion
In this multicenter retrospective cohort of 290 patients with intermediate-risk acute PE treated with mechanical thrombectomy, earlier intervention within 12 hours of diagnosis did not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality compared with delayed intervention. However, earlier thrombectomy was associated with greater reductions in pulmonary artery pressures and a lower rate of intubation.
The study therefore points toward a potential physiologic and respiratory benefit of prompt catheter-based clot removal in selected patients, while leaving the mortality question unresolved. Prospective studies, ideally randomized or at least rigorously controlled, are needed to determine whether early thrombectomy improves longer-term clinical outcomes and to define which intermediate-risk patients derive the greatest net benefit.
Funding and ClinicalTrials.gov
The abstract does not report a funding source. No ClinicalTrials.gov registration number is provided in the abstract, which is consistent with the retrospective observational design.
References
1. Chiang CJ, Bria KE, Chrysafi P, Falvello V, Sanfilippo KM, Schaefer JK, Bauer K, Patell R, Baumann Kreuziger L, Freese RL, Gutierrez Bernal A. Effects of Early Versus Delayed Mechanical Thrombectomy on Outcomes in Intermediate-Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism. Critical Care Medicine. 2026 Apr 23. PMID: 42023946.
2. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). European Heart Journal. 2020;41(4):543-603. PMID: 31504429.
3. Meyer G, Vicaut E, Danays T, et al. Fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;370(15):1402-1411. PMID: 24716681.
4. Tapson VF, Sterling K, Jones N, et al. A randomized trial of the optimum duration of acoustic pulse thrombolysis procedure in acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: the OPTALYSE PE trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018;11(14):1401-1410. PMID: 30025734.
5. Tu T, Toma C, Tapson VF, et al. A prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial of catheter-directed mechanical thrombectomy for intermediate-risk acute pulmonary embolism: the FLARE study. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;12(9):859-869. PMID: 31072507.
6. Sista AK, Horowitz JM, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Indigo aspiration system for treatment of pulmonary embolism: results of the EXTRACT-PE trial. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2021;14(3):319-329. PMID: 33454291.
7. Kabrhel C, Rosovsky R, Channick R, et al. A multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response team: initial 30-month experience with a novel approach to delivery of care to patients with massive and submassive pulmonary embolism. Chest. 2016;150(2):384-393. PMID: 26993848.
