Thrombolysis is an established treatment for high-risk (severe) acute PE with hemodynamic instability (
14,
15). This approach effectively dissolves the thromboembolic blockage, rapidly lowering pulmonary artery pressure and resistance by increasing cardiac output (
11). Thrombolysis has also shown superiority over anticoagulant therapy in treating moderate-risk PE (
16). Proven thrombolytic agents include streptokinase, urokinase, alteplase, and tenecteplase. Reteplase, a third-generation fibrin-specific recombinant tissue plasminogen activator, lacks the epidermal growth factor and Kringle domain 1 (
17). While the efficacy of reteplase in acute myocardial infarction is well-documented, only limited case reports and series have addressed its use in high- and moderate-risk PE. Consequently, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of thrombolysis with reteplase on vital signs, RV parameters, and clinical symptoms in patients with acute massive and submassive PE requiring thrombolysis, conducted in the cardiac ward of Valiasr and Razi hospitals in Birjand from early 2016 to late 2020.
In this study, a total of 28 patients, comprising 14 men and 14 women with an average age of 54 ± 12, were included. Shortness of breath was reported by 96.4% of patients. Previous studies have also identified dyspnea as the most common symptom, aligning with our findings.
Hypotension was initially reported in 64.3% of patients (n = 18), but 48 hours after receiving reteplase, none of the patients exhibited hypotension. Reteplase SPO
2 and key vital signs, including HR, RR, and BP upon admission (
18,
19). It also had a notable positive effect on dyspnea in patients with acute massive and submassive PE (P < 0.001). Initially, 42.9% (12 patients) reported chest pain, but none reported it 48 hours after receiving reteplase. Only one patient (3.6%) reported hemoptysis at admission, and this symptom was absent 48 hours post-treatment.
In a retrospective study of 20 patients with massive PE treated with reteplase, findings demonstrated improved RV function and reduced systolic pulmonary artery pressure (
20). In our study, reteplase also had a significant effect on RV diameter and function (TAPSE) observed via echocardiography 48 hours after administration compared to measurements taken upon hospitalization. Additionally, reteplase significantly reduced pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP), decreasing from 57 ± 16 mmHg to 34 ± 12 mmHg, according to echocardiography results.
Reteplase exhibited an excellent safety profile, with no side effects reported in 92.8% (26 patients) during hospitalization. Of the 26 discharged patients, 21 (80.8%) reported no complications after discharge, while only 5 (19.2%) noted minor complications. Thromboembolism recurrence was observed in just 3 (11.5%) patients, and one patient (3.8%) experienced an ischemic CVA.
In a study by Tebbe et al., comparing reteplase and alteplase, no significant difference in safety outcomes was observed, and no stroke or intracranial hemorrhage occurred in patients with severe PE. This study also demonstrated that reteplase, administered in a double standard bolus of 10 + 10 U, is effective for treating severe PE (
21). In another study by Zhang et al., only one death was reported, with significant improvement observed in 11 cases, and the effective rate of reteplase treatment was 93.8%. In Zhang’s study, HR and RR remained similar before and after thrombolysis. In contrast, our study reported three deaths, with decreases in HR and RR following reteplase treatment. Furthermore, Zhang's study reported no life-threatening bleeding in the reteplase group, a finding consistent with our results (
22).
A review of randomized trials with other thrombolytic agents found mortality rates of 9.4% for high-risk PE and 2.2% for intermediate-risk PE following reteplase administration (
7). In our study, the overall mortality rate was 10.7% (3 patients), including two who died during hospitalization and one within a year post-discharge. Notably, one of the hospitalized patients had experienced cardiopulmonary arrest and showed evidence of severe RV failure, indicative of massive PE. Zhang et al. also reported an excellent safety profile for reteplase, with no major bleeding, aligning with our findings, where most patients reported no complications after discharge (
22).
In a case report, Çoner et al. demonstrated the successful treatment of massive PE with reteplase administered as two separate bolus injections of 10 IU, spaced 30 minutes apart. After the administration of the first bolus, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved within 6 minutes. Duplex ultrasound of the lower limb detected acute thrombosis in the deep right femoral vein. The dilation and dysfunction of the right ventricle decreased, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure fell below 15 mmHg (
23). In another case report by Theron and Laidlow, reteplase (10 U followed by another 10 U after 30 minutes) significantly improved the patient's cardiovascular status (
24). Similarly, in a study by Zhang et al., conducted on an animal model (dog) of pulmonary thromboembolism, a single bolus injection of reteplase (6.0 mg/kg) over 2 minutes led to a normalization of pulmonary systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure (
25).
Almost all studies, including the present one, have shown rapid and significant improvement in hemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters. Overall, the results of our study, along with findings from other studies, indicate that reteplase effectively reduces symptoms and improves clinical factors associated with pulmonary thromboembolism, with fewer complications and lower mortality compared to other thrombolytic and anticoagulant drugs. Evidence from this retrospective study, along with previous case reports, suggests that reteplase is highly effective for PE and exhibits an excellent safety profile. This study adds positive evidence supporting the increased use of reteplase for thrombolysis, positioning it as a suitable alternative to first-generation thrombolytics in PE. For more definitive conclusions, future research in the form of large prospective and randomized studies is needed.
Our study has several limitations, the most notable being the lack of a comparison arm. Additionally, as a retrospective study, the number of patients receiving reteplase for thrombolysis was relatively small.
5.1. Conclusions
Pulmonary embolism is a life-threatening condition that requires prompt systemic thrombolysis. In our study, reteplase demonstrated high efficacy, leading to rapid clinical improvement. Additionally, it was used without significantly increasing the risk of bleeding or mortality. Although this study was limited by its retrospective design, reteplase appears to be a promising option for treating PE. However, further large-scale prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.