• Olivier Sanchez, Benjamin Planquette, Delphine Wermert, Elisabeth Marié, and Guy Meyer.
• Université Paris Descartes, Faculté de médecine, F-75 006 Paris, France. olivier.sanchez@egp.aphp.fr
• Presse Med. 2008 Oct 1;37(10):1439-46.

AbstractMassive pulmonary embolism is defined by systemic hypotension or cardiogenic shock. Clinically stable patients with right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography, elevated brain natriuretic peptide or troponin are usually considered as having sub-massive pulmonary embolism, but this definition is not universally accepted. The time-lag to confirm massive pulmonary embolism should be kept as short as possible and every effort should be done to rely on bedside tests and to avoid patient transfer to the radiology department. D-dimer tests are useless in this setting and the diagnosis is mainly based on clinical probability and bedside echocardiography. When clinical probability is high, right ventricular dilatation assessed by echocardiography allows confirming the diagnosis without additional testing. On the other hand a normal echocardiography does not allow excluding pulmonary embolism. In this setting, a spiral computed tomography is mandatory after the patient has been stabilized. Anticoagulant treatment should be started as soon as pulmonary embolism has been suspected. Supportive care includes oxygen, fluid loading and inotropes. There is little doubt that thrombolytic treatment is of value in patients with massive pulmonary embolism. Conversely, the use of thrombolytic therapy in patients with so-called sub-massive pulmonary embolism remains controversial. Current data do not confirm that thrombolytic therapy decreases mortality in those patients but cannot exclude a clinically significant benefit. A large randomised comparison of heparin and thrombolysis in patients with sub-massive pulmonary embolism is underway to answer this question. Surgical or catheter embolectomy is nowadays only rarely performed in patients with pulmonary embolism. This method can be undertaken in the few patients with persisting shock despite supportive care and who have an absolute contraindication for thrombolytic therapy. Before new data are available there is no special indication for vena cava interruption in patients with massive pulmonary embolism.

16 keywords...

hide…