Acute pulmonary embolism is a common complication in hospitalized patients, spanning multiple patient populations and crossing various therapeutic disciplines. Due to the heterogeneous clinical manifestations, the selection of management strategies for patients with acute pulmonary embolism is a challenge for clinicians, and a nuanced understanding of the relevant literature is required. Previous studies that evaluated thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism are limited and controversial. Thus, we sought to identify the clinical controversies related to thrombolytic therapy in acute pulmonary embolism and reviewed the recent literature that impacts clinical practice. To apply these controversies into daily clinical practice and decision making, we provide an overview of risk stratification and assessment of pulmonary embolism. Specific areas of controversies that are discussed relate to the impact of thrombolytic therapy on outcomes, specifically in submassive pulmonary embolism, including mortality, composite primary end points, and intensive care unit length of stay. Other controversies relate to the impact of the patient's sex on outcomes, the most safe and effective thrombolytic dose, optimal administration techniques including infusion duration or concurrent anticoagulation, and therapeutic strategies when thrombolytic therapy is unsuccessful. Despite published guidelines and review articles, select aspects of thrombolytic therapy for the management of pulmonary embolism remain controversial; therefore, clinical practice varies from institution to institution and from practitioner to practitioner. When making decisions about the role of thrombolytic therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism, clinicians must be knowledgeable about areas with limited evidence and the therapy's associated risks. In every situation, practitioners must consider the trajectory of the patient's status and the ability to intervene in an appropriate time frame.
© 2012 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.