Abstract
BACKGROUND: To our knowledge we report the first case of percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy used for the treatment of massive pulmonary embolism in the United Kingdom. Pulmonary embolism is a common disease process but can be difficult to diagnose. Massive pulmonary embolism presenting with profound hypotension, however, is rare. Both phenomena carry with them significant mortality. Traditionally those patients suffering haemodynamic compromise from pulmonary embolism are treated with intravenous or catheter-directed thrombolysis. When this is contraindicated surgical embolectomy or mechanical techniques via a right heart catheter are alternative options. The former is well established but the latter is less commonly utilised in clinical practice. Our aim is to highlight the effectiveness and relative safety of percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy as a therapeutic tool in massive pulmonary embolism. CASE PRESENTATION: A 70 year-old gentleman presented with a 4-month history of dry cough and general malaise. Clinical examination along with routine chest radiograph confirmed a left pleural effusion which was drained. Computed tomography of the chest, abdomen and pelvis revealed a left renal mass consistent with renal cell carcinoma plus multiple metastatic subpleural nodules. Following planned thoracoscopy and pleural biopsy the patient became acutely dyspnoeic and hypotensive. Relevant investigations including computed tomography pulmonary angiogram confirmed a large saddle embolus extending in to the lobar branches of both left and right pulmonary arteries. There were several relative contraindications to thrombolysis and so the patient proceeded to have percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy with excellent results. The patient made a full recovery from the acute episode and was discharged home on warfarin with a view to planned cyto-reductive nephrectomy. CONCLUSION: We illustrate here that percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy can be a safe and effective method of treating massive pulmonary embolism when thrombolysis is relatively contraindicated. It may also be of use as an adjuvant therapy in those patients able to receive thrombolysis. In the future further evaluation involving a larger cohort of subjects is necessary to determine whether this treatment is superior to surgical embolectomy when thrombolysis cannot be performed.