STORM-PE
Randomized Controlled Trial

First-of-its-kind RCT for acute intermediate-high
risk pulmonary embolism (PE).

CAVT – Now Proven by Level 1 Evidencec

heart and lungs logo encircled by a catheter with the text
newspaper icon

Prospective, Randomized Trial

lungs icon

Acute, Intermediate-High Risk PE

hospital icon

22 International Sites

person icon

100 Participants

  • Evaluate the efficacy and assess safety of treating acute, intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism with anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation plus computer assisted vacuum thrombectomy (CAVT) with the Indigo® Aspiration System.

    • Change in RV/LV ratio assessed by CTPA at 48-hoursa
    • Major adverse events within 7 daysb
    • Safety (symptomatic PE recurrence, all-cause mortality and PE-related mortality) as well as functional outcomes and quality of life assessments at 90 days

    a. Results adjudicated by a blinded, independent imaging Core Lab
    b. Major adverse event is defined as a composite of clinical deterioration requiring escalation of care, PE-related mortality, symptomatic recurrent PE, or major bleeding.

  • STORM-PE patients were randomized 1:1, divided into the computer assisted vacuum thrombectomy (CAVT) plus anticoagulation arm or the anticoagulation alone arm.

    Computer Assisted Vacuum Thrombectomy plus Anticoagulation VS Anticoagulation alone

    • Symptom onset of 14 days or less
    • Acute PE with proximal filling defect confirmed by CTPA
    • Intermediate-high risk PE demonstrated by RV/LV ratio and elevated biomarkers

Results Now Published in American Heart Association Journal: Circulation

Trial Design Manuscript Published in American Heart Journal

ClinicalTrials.gov Study Site

Primary Endpoint

RV/LV Reduction Baseline to 48 Hours

CAVT arm demonstrated a superior reduction in right heart strain (ΔRV/LV ratio) compared to AC alone

29.7% Relative Reduction > 13.1% Relative

blue chart showing a bar labeled "baseline" of "1.63" being higher than a bar labeled "48 hrs" of "1.11" in the "CAVT Arm (n=46)" and another grey bar chart showing a bar labeled "baseline" of "1.56" being higher than a bar labeled "48 hours" of "1.56" in the "AC ARM (N=52)"

Expanded RV/LV Analysis

48 Hour RV/LV Reduction > 0.2

Significantly more patients in the CAVT arm had a treatment effect

Bar chart showing blue bar having value of 78.3% being higher than grey bar having value of 51.9%

Safety Endpoint

CAVT arm showed comparable safety rate to AC alone, with numerically fewer Major Adverse Event (MAE) in the CAVT armd
  • Composite MAE ≤ 7 Days (%, n)

    Bar chart showing a blue bar having the value of 4.3% being lower than a grey bar having a value of 7.5%

  • Major Bleeding (BARC 3a-5)e

    blue bar having value of 2.1% higher than grey bar having value of 1.9%

Clinical Outcomes

CAVT patients show earlier physiological recovery compared to AC arm
  • Tachycardia HR > 100 bpm, % of Patients

    Plot chart with randomization and 48 hours, showing CAVT Arm (N=46) reduced 23.9% to 2.2%.

  • NEWS2 Score at Baseline & 48 Hours

    Bar Chart showing the difference between CAVT Arm vs AC arm 3.5 to 1.8

Functional Endpoint

CAVT patients had greater improvement in functional recovery versus AC alone as shown by 6-Minute Walk Test

% of predicted 6 Minute Walk Distance (6MWD) at 90 days

Predicted walk distance is normalized for sex, age, and body surface areag

bar chart comparing CAVT ARM (N=31) with a value of 94% TO AC ARM (N=34) with a value of 75.2% with walking icons and a P value equal to 0.022" width="960" height="236

Procedure Data
  • Device Time (median)

    25 min

    [15.0, 41.0]

  • Procedure Time (median)

    56 min

    [42.0, 69.0]

  • mPAP Reduction (mean)

    27.3%

    (8.2 mmHg)

  • Technical
    Successh

    100%

    (47/47)

  • Device Related Transfusion

    0%

    (0/47)

National Principal Investigators

Rachel Rosovsky, MD

Hematology

Massachusetts General Hospital

Robert Lookstein, MD

Interventional Radiology

Mount Sinai Hospital

Steering Committee Members

Ido Weinberg, MD

Vascular Medicine

Massachusetts General Brigham

Richard Channick, MD

Pulmonology

UCLA Medical Center

John Moriarty, MD

Interventional Radiology

UCLA Medical Center

Sahil Parikh, MD

Interventional Cardiology

Columbia University Medical Center

Stavros Konstantinides, MD

Cardiology

University Medical Center Mainz

Suhail Dohad, MD

Interventional Cardiology

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center

Richard Davis

Patient Representative

c. Lookstein, R. A., Konstantinides, S. V., Weinberg, I., Dohad, S. Y., Rosol, Z., Kopeć, G., Moriarty, J. M., Parikh, S. A., Holden, A., Channick, R. N., McDonald, B., Nagarsheth, K. H., Yamada, K., & Rosovsky, R. P. (2025). Randomized controlled trial of mechanical thrombectomy with anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone for acute intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism: Primary outcomes from the STORM-PE trial. Circulation. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.077232
d. STORM-PE was not powered to detect differences in safety
e. Type 3a was not considered major bleeding if it was related to an expected decrease in hemoglobin level due to fluid administration and if transfusion was less than 2 units
f. Timepoint closest to randomization, after administration of AC and pre-procedure for the CAVT arm. Paired data represented.
g. Enright, PL, & Sherrill, DL. Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158(5 Pt 1):1384–1387
h. Ability of catheter to access clot and perform aspiration
STORM-PE demonstrated superiority to anticoagulation utilizing Lightning Flash® 1.0 and 2.0. Efficacy was predefined as the difference between treatment arms in change of RV/LV ratio from baseline to 48 hrs. The clinical results presented herein are for informational purposes only, and may not be predictive for all patients. Individual results may vary based on patient specific-attributes and other factors

Questions?

Contact us to learn more about our products and company