Thrombolytic Therapy in the Acute Period of Aortic Thromboembolism in Cats
a Knowledge Summary by
Joshua Billy Hannabuss BVetMed, PGDipVCP, MRCVS1*
1University of Bristol, Bristol Veterinary School, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU
*Corresponding Author (jhannabuss@rvc.ac.uk)
Vol 4, Issue 2 (2019)
Published: 06 June 2019
Reviewed by: Theodora Tsouloufi (DVM, PhD, MRCVS) and Melanie Hezzell (MA(Cantab.), VetMB(Cantab.), PhD(RVC), CertVDI, CertVC, MRCVS, DACVIM)
Next review date: 20 Jan 2020
DOI: 10.18849/VE.V4I2.212
Of cats that present with aortic thromboembolism, do patients that receive thrombolytic therapy in the acute phase have improved survival as compared to those who do not?
Clinical bottom lineBased on the current available evidence, the use of thrombolytic therapy in the acute phase of aortic thromboembolism (ATE) does not appear to improve survival when compared to conventional supportive therapy. Frequently reported adverse side effects further questions its merits, and large scale controlled clinical trials would be required to further evaluate any benefit in the use of this therapy.
Clinical scenario
An 8-year-old male neutered domestic shorthair presents with acute onset bilateral hindlimb paralysis. On auscultation, a grade III/VI heart murmur is detected. Femoral pulses are absent, distal hindlimbs are cool when palpated and the hindlimb paw pads appear cyanotic. A previous diagnosis of pre-clinical hypertrophic cardiomyopathy had been confirmed on echocardiography. You are strongly suspicious of an aortic thromboembolism and the owner is keen to pursue further treatment. A repeat echocardiogram reveals enlargement of the left atrium, with atrial smoke but no visible thrombus. A quick TFAST is absent for B-lines which may reflect left sided congestive heart failure (CHF).
In addition to supportive therapy, would additional thrombolytic treatment for clot dissolution improve outcome in the acute phase?
The evidence
Six studies were included that best answered the proposed PICO question. A number of thrombolytic therapies have been described for aortic thrombosis, however a lack of controlled studies prohibits direct comparison between those that receive conventional supportive therapy and the different thrombolytic options.
Three of the six studies were included for survival statistics of cats that did not receive a form of thrombolytic therapy and the three studies evaluating thrombolytic therapy explored the use of streptokinase, rheolytic thrombectomy and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA).
The three studies included for the survival statistics were all retrospective case series ranking low in evidence hierarchy.
Summary of the evidence
Population: |
|
Sample size: | 44 cats (49 episodes of ATE) |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Retrospective case series |
Outcome Studied: | Evaluation of records of cats presenting to a first opinion veterinary hospital with clinical signs of distal aortic thromboembolism. |
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: |
|
Sample size: | 46 cats |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Retrospective case series |
Outcome Studied: |
|
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: |
|
Sample size: | 127 cats |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Retrospective case series |
Outcome Studied: |
|
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: |
|
Sample size: | Six cats |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Prospective clinical trial (nonrandomised, nonblinded) |
Outcome Studied: | To determine the safety and efficacy of the AngioJet™ rheolytic thrombectomy system in the treatment of ATE |
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: |
|
Sample size: | 11 cats |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Prospective randomised clinical trial (nonblinded) |
Outcome Studied: |
|
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Population: |
|
Sample size: | 250 cats |
Intervention details: |
|
Study design: | Retrospective case series |
Outcome Studied: |
|
Main Findings (relevant to PICO question): |
|
Limitations: |
|
Appraisal, application and reflection
Of the best available evidence, four of the studies were retrospective case series. Three of these studies were included to provide survival information for those that did not receive thrombolytic therapy and the other study explored the use of streptokinase. As retrospective case series, intervention and patient population was not standardised and therefore bias may significantly affect the results. For this reason, direct comparisons cannot be deduced between studies. Of the other two studies which evaluated the use of tPA (n –11) and rheolytic thrombectomy (n – 6), sample sizes were small and therefore both are likely to be underpowered.
Survival to discharge in patients that did not receive thrombolytic therapy was reported: 33% (35% overall survival includes four treated with streptokinase) and 42% (survivors of the initial event treated with supportive therapy alone in the acute phase) (Smith et al., 2003); 39% (Schoeman, 1999) and 27% [first 24 hours], 12% [at seven days] (Borgeat et al., 2014). Borgeat et al., (2014) reported that 61% were euthanised at presentation and of the cats that survived the first 24 hours, 47% were euthanised in the following seven days. Many factors may influence decision making with regards to euthanasia including prognostic indicators (rectal temperature, number of limbs affected, comorbidities, electrolyte parameters etc.) client factors and welfare on an individual basis, which may explain different survival figures between studies.
Reimer, et al. (2006) evaluated the use of rheolytic thrombectomy with a survival of 50% (three cats). The entire population presented with hindlimb paralysis, absent femoral pulses and hypothermia which has been reported to carry a poor prognosis (Smith et al., 2003; Borgeat et al., 2014). All cats had underlying structural heart disease. Of the 50% of cats that did not survive to discharge, hypotension was a common clinical finding. Cats also received heparin therapy which has been proposed to influence survival (Moore et al., 2000). Some cats had already survived 192 hours following initial ATE episode so its arguable that these had already survived the acute phase without thrombolytic intervention. The small sample size of this study weakens the statistical power of results.
Moore et al. (2000) reported a survival of 33% in patients that received streptokinase therapy. 89% presented with hindlimb paresis/paralysis to which 54% regained pulses 2–24 hours following infusion. The incidence of congestive heart failure was 21/32 (66%) and of the 36 cats that underwent echocardiography, all cats had evidence of structural heart disease. Infusion time of streptokinase was largely variable (1–28 hours) and other treatment was not standardised with some patients receiving heparin. 35% of patients were hyperkalaemic post streptokinase therapy which was associated with longer infusion times. Hyperkalaemia is likely a result of reperfusion injury and was negatively associated with survival. Only one cat with documented hyperkalaemia survived to discharge, however six cats did not have serum potassium measured following streptokinase infusion. 39% of the population developed clinical signs of bleeding or coagulation abnormalities and three cats required blood transfusion.
Welch et al. (2010) evaluated the use of two dosing strategies with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). 64% of cats survived the initial 24 hours post therapy and 27% survived to discharge. The study was terminated early due to adverse side effects in all patients. Adverse side effects included: arrhythmias, azotemia, hyperkalemia, neurological signs with respiratory arrest in three cases; cardiac arrest in one cat and haemorrhage. After the first 24 hours, ongoing treatment was at the clinician’s discretion and therefore treatment was no longer standardised. A limb scoring system was used to assess pulse and motor quality. Twelve hours post tPA administration, 6/7 (67%) cats regained pulses or had improvements in limb scores. Smith et al. (2003) has reported a correlation between improving motor function and survival, however many factors could influence this finding including severity of the initial ATE event and the subjectivity of these scoring systems. Similar to the rheolytic thrombectomy study, the sample size was small and therefore statistics are likely to be underpowered.
Decision making with regards to treatment of feline ATE is a multifactorial process that requires careful consideration on a patient by patient basis. This makes it difficult to compare different studies especially those carried out retrospectively. Of the evidence available exploring the use of thrombolytic therapies, sample sizes are small and lack comparative control groups. As discussed, the decision for euthanasia is based on many factors. This should be considered when comparing the survival figures between studies as those investigating the use of thrombolytic therapy represent a population of cats that have been selected for treatment and not euthanised. Although Reimer, et al. (2006) reported a 50% survival to discharge rate, the significance of this result is questionable by the small sample size and other factors discussed above. The other studies did not demonstrate superior survival compared to conventional supportive therapy. Frequently reported adverse side effects further questions the use of thrombolytic therapy as adjunct treatment.
Ultimately, randomised, large scale controlled clinical trials would be required to see whether there is any merit in the use of thrombolytic therapy in the acute phase of aortic thrombosis.
Methodology Section
Search Strategy | |
Databases searched and dates covered: | CAB Abstracts on OVID platform 1973 to 2017 week 49
MEDLINE on OVID platform 1946 to present |
Search terms: | (cats or cat diseases) OR (cats OR cat OR feline* OR felis) AND (thromboembolism or embolism or thrombosis) OR (arterialthromboembolism or arterial-thromboembolism or thromboembolism or embolism or thrombus) |
Dates searches performed: | CAB Abstracts (20/12/17); Ovid MEDLINE (19/12/17) |
Exclusion / Inclusion Criteria | |
Exclusion: | Papers inappropriate to the PICO (non-related title and abstract; other species; papers unable to demonstrate post therapy outcome) conference proceedings; case reports; non-English language; opinion articles; papers not accessible; experimental ATE; book chapters |
Inclusion: | Papers identifying acute outcome following use of thrombolytic therapy for ATE; papers with survival statistics for acute period in patients that did not receive thrombolytics (due to lack of comparative studies); naturally occurring ATE; ATE causing limb dysfunction |
Search Outcome | |||||||||
Database |
Number of results |
Excluded – not in English language |
Excluded – Not relevant to PICO |
Excluded – Conference proceedings |
Excluded – book chapter etc. |
Excluded – Case reports |
Excluded – Opinion article |
Excluded – unable to access |
Total relevant papers |
CAB abstracts |
479 | 105 | 299 | 6 | 49 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
Medline |
600 | 101 | 487 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
Total relevant papers when duplicates removed |
6 |
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Intellectual Property Rights
Authors of Knowledge Summaries submitted to RCVS Knowledge for publication will retain copyright in their work, and will be required to grant to RCVS Knowledge a non-exclusive licence of the rights of copyright in the materials including but not limited to the right to publish, re-publish, transmit, sell, distribute and otherwise use the materials in all languages and all media throughout the world, and to licence or permit others to do so.
Disclaimer
Knowledge Summaries are a peer-reviewed article type which aims to answer a clinical question based on the best available current evidence. It does not override the responsibility of the practitioner. Informed decisions should be made by considering such factors as individual clinical expertise and judgement along with patient’s circumstances and owners’ values. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help inform and any opinions expressed within the Knowledge Summaries are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of the RCVS Knowledge. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the content. While the Editor and Publisher believe that all content herein are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication, they accept no legal responsibility for any errors or omissions, and make no warranty, express or implied, with respect to material contained within. For further information please refer to our Terms of Use.