Low concordance between CTPA and echocardiography in identification of right ventricular strain in PERT patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Critical Care Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

The unprimed right ventricle is exquisitely sensitive to acute elevations in afterload. High pulmonary vascular tone incurred with acute pulmonary embolism has the potential to induce obstructive shock and circulatory collapse. While emergent pulmonary reperfusion is essential in severe circumstances, an important subset of pulmonary embolism patients may exhibit a less extreme presentation posing a management dilemma. As intensive care therapies have the potential to both salvage and harm the failing right ventricle, a keen understanding of the pathophysiology is requisite in the care of the contemporary patient with hemodynamically significant pulmonary embolism. Here, we review right ventricular pathophysiology, an approach to risk stratification, and offer guidance on the medical and mechanical supportive and therapeutic strategies for the critically ill patient with acute pulmonary embolism.

Intermediate-Risk and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Recognition and Management: Cardiology Clinics: Cardiac Emergencies

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular death. Every specialty of medical practitioner will encounter PE in their patients, and should be prepared to employ contemporary strategies for diagnosis and initial risk-stratification. Treatment of PE is based on risk-stratification, with anticoagulation for all patients, and advanced modalities including systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapies, and mechanical circulatory supports utilized in a manner paralleling PE severity and clinical context.

Management of high-risk pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is a complex, life-threatening condition, and emergency clinicians must be ready to resuscitate and rapidly pursue primary reperfusion therapy. The first-line reperfusion therapy for patients with high-risk PE is systemic thrombolytics (ST). Despite consensus guidelines, only a fraction of eligible patients receive ST for high-risk PE.

OBJECTIVE

This review provides emergency clinicians with a comprehensive overview of the current evidence regarding the management of high-risk PE with an emphasis on ST and other reperfusion therapies to address the gap between practice and guideline recommendations.

DISCUSSION

High-risk PE is defined as PE that causes hemodynamic instability. The high mortality rate and dynamic pathophysiology of high-risk PE make it challenging to manage. Initial stabilization of the decompensating patient includes vasopressor administration and supplemental oxygen or high-flow nasal cannula. Primary reperfusion therapy should be pursued for those with high-risk PE, and consensus guidelines recommend the use of ST for high-risk PE based on studies demonstrating benefit. Other options for reperfusion include surgical embolectomy and catheter directed interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency clinicians must possess an understanding of high-risk PE including the clinical assessment, pathophysiology, management of hemodynamic instability and respiratory failure, and primary reperfusion therapies.

Early discharge and home treatment of patients with acute pulmonary embolism in the tertiary care setting

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially life-threatening disease. Current guidelines suggest risk-adapted management. Hospitalization is required for intermediate- and high-risk patients. Early discharge and home treatment are considered safe in the majority of low-risk patients. In this study, we describe characteristics, discharge, and outcome of outpatients diagnosed with acute PE at a tertiary care center. All outpatients undergoing computed tomography pulmonary angiography or ventilation/perfusion lung scan between 01.01.2016 and 31.12.2019 at the University Hospital Vienna, Austria, were screened for a PE diagnosis. Electronic patient charts were used to extract characteristics, clinical course, and outcomes. Within the 4-year period, 709 outpatients (median age: 62 years, 50% women) were diagnosed with PE. Thirty-three (5%) patients were classified as high-risk, 159 (22%) as intermediate-high, 332 (47%) as intermediate-low, and 185 (26%) as low-risk PE according to the European Society of Cardiology risk stratification. In total, 156 (22%) patients (47% with low-risk and 20% with intermediate-low-risk PE) were discharged as outpatients and received home treatment. Rates for home treatment increased 2.4-fold during the study period. Thirty-day mortality in the entire population was 4.9%. All low-risk patients and all but one patient with home treatment survived the first 30 days. Home treatment significantly increased over time and seems to be safe in routine clinical practice. Notably, one in five intermediate-low-risk patients was discharged immediately, suggesting that a subpopulation of intermediate-low-risk patients may also be eligible for home treatment.

Home Treatment of Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: A Single Center 10-Year Experience from Ljubljana Registry

Current guidelines suggest careful risk stratification using a structured clinical approach when selecting patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. The aim of our study was to assess whether PE patients referred to home treatment are appropriately risk-stratified according to guidelines prior to referral and what the real-life course of the disease in these patients is. We included patients with confirmed PE referred to outpatient management and treated with anticoagulants between 2010 and 2019, whose data were collected in a prospective management registry. Using simplified PE severity index and/or signs of right ventricular strain, we classified patients to either appropriate or inappropriate low-risk classes for outpatient management. We compared 30-day mortality, overall mortality, and rates of recurrent thromboembolism or major bleeding between both classes. Among 278 patients, 188 (67.6%) and 90 (32.4%) were classified as appropriate or inappropriate class, respectively. In total, 30-day mortality was low in both groups: 0% in appropriate class and 1.1% in inappropriate class. The overall mortality rate was higher in the inappropriate than in the appropriate class (12.1 vs 0.9/100 patient-years, respectively, P < .001). Rates of recurrent thromboembolism and major bleeding were similar for both classes. We conclude that in real-life, a significant proportion of inappropriate low-risk class PE patients are referred to outpatient management. However, with careful follow-up, early mortality is low, even in home-treated patients inappropriately classified as low-risk.