Outpatient or inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism: a retrospective cohort study of 439 consecutive patients

Association between diabetes and venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) plays a vital role in the development of cardiovascular disease. However, its association with venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains unclear, for the published study results are conflicting. We performed a meta-analysis of published cohort studies and case-control studies to assess the role of DM in the formation and prognosis of VTE.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for articles from the database's establishment until September 15, 2022. Of the 15,754 publications retrieved, 50 studies were identified that met the selection criteria. The New castle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the literature. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed- or random-effect models.

RESULTS

We combined OR using a random-effects or fixed-effects model: patients with DM had an increased risk of VTE (OR 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.41), which still showed a partial association in studies adjusted by confounding factors (OR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.07-1.35). DM was not significantly associated with VTE when analyzed in studies adjusted by body mass index (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.94-1.15). VTE patients with DM had a higher risk of short-term and long-term mortality than those without DM (OR 1.58 [95% CI: 1.26-1.99] for long-term mortality and OR 1.20 [95% CI: 1.19-1.21] for short-term mortality).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant association between DM and VTE risk, and body mass index may be a significant confounding factor between DM and VTE risk. However, DM can still lead to an increased risk of long-term and short-term mortality in patients with VTE.

Cardiovascular Involvement in COVID-19: What Sequelae Should We Expect?

Several forms of cardiovascular involvement have been described in patients with Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19): myocardial injury, acute coronary syndrome, acute heart failure, myocarditis, pericardial diseases, arrhythmias, takotsubo syndrome, and arterial and venous atherothrombotic and thromboembolic events. Data on long-term outcome of these patients are still sparse, and the type and real incidence of cardiovascular sequelae are poorly known. It is plausible that myocardial injury may be the initiator of an inflammatory cascade, edema, and subsequent fibrosis, but also a consequence of systemic inflammation. The extent and distribution of ongoing inflammation may be the basis for ventricular dysfunction and malignant arrhythmias. Indeed, preliminary observational findings seem to emphasize the importance of close monitoring of COVID-19 patients with myocardial injury after discharge. Residual subclinical disease may be effectively investigated by using second-level imaging modalities such as cardiac magnetic resonance, which allows better characterization of the type and extension of myocardial damage, as well as of the ongoing inflammation after the acute phase. In patients with venous thromboembolism, a very common complication of COVID-19, the type and the duration of anticoagulation therapy after the acute phase should be tailored to the patient and based on the estimation of the individual thromboembolic and hemorrhagic risk. Large randomized clinical trials are ongoing to address this clinical question. Whether the severity of cardiovascular involvement, the type of treatments adopted during the acute phase, and the hemodynamic response, may influence the long-term outcome of patients recovered from COVID-19 is unknown. An etiological diagnosis of myocardial injury during the hospitalization is the first step for an appropriate follow-up in these patients. After discharge, the screening for residual left and right ventricular dysfunction, arrhythmias, residual thrombosis, and myocardial scar should be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas an active clinical surveillance is mandatory in any patient.

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

METHODS

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

DISCUSSION

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

Reducing the hospital burden associated with the treatment of pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most feared clinical presentation of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients with PE have traditionally been treated in hospital; however, many are at low risk of adverse outcomes and current guidelines suggest outpatient treatment as an option. Outpatient treatment of PE offers several advantages, including reduced risk of hospital-acquired conditions and potential cost savings. Despite this, patients with low-risk PE are still frequently hospitalized for treatment. This narrative review summarizes current guideline recommendations for the identification of patients with low-risk PE who are potentially suitable for outpatient treatment, using prognostic assessment tools (e.g. the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and simplified PESI) and clinical exclusion criteria (e.g. Hestia criteria) alone or in combination with additional cardiac assessments. Treatment options are discussed along with recommendations for the follow-up of patients managed in the non-hospital environment. The available data on outpatient treatment of PE are summarized, including details on patient selection, anticoagulant choice, and short-term outcomes in each study. Accumulating evidence suggests that outcomes in patients with low-risk PE treated as outpatients are at least as good as, if not better than, those of patients treated in the hospital. With mounting pressures on health care systems worldwide, increasing the proportion of patients with PE treated as outpatients has the potential to reduce health care burdens associated with VTE.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for pulmonary embolism: who, where and for how long?

INTRODUCTION

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a relatively common cardiopulmonary emergency that is a major cause of hospitalization and morbidity and is the primary cause of mortality associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). During the last decade, one of the biggest changes in the management of PE has been the approval of four non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) for the treatment of PE and deep vein thrombosis and secondary prevention of VTE. Areas covered: This article reviews the evolving management of PE in the NOAC era and addresses three fundamental questions: who should receive NOACs over conventional heparin/vitamin K antagonist regimens for the treatment of acute PE; should patients be treated as inpatients or outpatients; and how long should patients be treated to reduce the risk of recurrence? Expert commentary: The management of PE is changing. NOACs provide new anticoagulant treatment options for patients with PE, based on Phase III clinical study results. The consistent efficacy and safety profile of NOACs across many PE patient subgroups, including the elderly, fragile patients, those with active cancer and high-risk (right ventricular dysfunction) patients, suggests NOAC use will increase among these patients.

[Acute pulmonary embolism: still a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge?]

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a cardiovascular emergency with high mortality in which a rapid diagnosis and the early initiation of therapy is vital. In the present study patients with acute PE hospitalized at the Clinic Lippe in Detmold were characterized and their prognosis examined.

METHODS

In our department at the hospital Detmold, all patients with acute PE admitted in 2012 and 2013 were documented with respect to the severity of PE, predisposing risk factors and diagnostic and therapeutic steps.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients with acute PE were documented of which 80 patients (47 %) had low, 70 patients an intermediate (41 %) and 20 a high risk (12 %). The main diagnostic tool was thoracic computed tomography (82 %). All patients initially received unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin; systemic intravenous fibrinolysis was carried out in 3 % of patients (intermediate risk n = 1, high risk n = 4). Nineteen percent (n = 13) of the patients at intermediate and 30 % (n = 6) of patients at high risk received local intrapulmonary fibrinolysis. Overall, the mortality rate in hospital was 10 % (low risk 2.5 %; intermediate risk 7 %; high risk 58 %). All 5 patients who received systemic emergency lysis died. One (5.3 %) of the 19 patients at intermediate risk, undergoing local intrapulmonary fibrinolysis, died.

CONCLUSION

In acute PE a rapid diagnosis and the initiation of an adequate therapy remains a big challenge. Further studies are required to evaluate if aggressive treatment options might reduce mortality especially among patients at intermediate or high risk.

External Validation of the Hestia Criteria for Identifying Acute Pulmonary Embolism Patients at Low Risk of Early Mortality

INTRODUCTION

There are limited studies evaluating the ability of the Hestia criteria to accurately identify patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) at low risk of early mortality. We sought to externally validate the Hestia criteria for predicting in-hospital and 30-day post-PE mortality.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified consecutive, adult, objectively confirmed PE patients presenting to the emergency department at our institution from November 21, 2010, to January 31, 2014. We ascertained the total number of Hestia criteria met for each patient, calculated the proportion of patients categorized as low risk (ie, no Hestia criteria met), and determined the accuracy of the Hestia criteria for predicting in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality. Mortality was determined through Social Security Death Index searches.

RESULTS

A total of 577 patients with PE were included, of which 19 (3.3%) and 35 (6.6%) died in hospital or within 30 days of presentation. Both in-hospital and 30-day case fatality rates rose as the number of Hestia criteria increased. One-hundred forty nine (25.8%) patients were classified as low risk for early mortality, and none of these patients died within 30 days (negative predictive values of 100%). The Hestia criteria had excellent sensitivity (100%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 79.1%-100% and 100%, 95% CI = 87.7%-100%) for predicting in-hospital and 30-day mortality but low specificity (<27.5% for both). The c-statistics for in-hospital and 30-day mortality were 83.5%, 95% CI = 77.1%-89.9% and 78.5%, 95% CI = 71.9%-85.1%. The predictive accuracy of the Hestia criteria remained acceptable in patients >80 years of age, with active cancer or chronic cardiopulmonary disease.

CONCLUSION

The Hestia criteria have an acceptable predictive accuracy to identify patients with PE at low risk for in-hospital or 30-day mortality.

The design and implementation of a new surveillance system for venous thromboembolism using combined active and passive methods

Estimates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence in the United States are limited by lack of a national surveillance system. We implemented a population-based surveillance system in Oklahoma County, OK, for April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2014, to estimate the incidences of first-time and recurrent VTE events, VTE-related mortality, and the proportion of case patients with provoked versus unprovoked VTE. The Commissioner of Health made VTE a reportable condition and delegated surveillance-related responsibilities to the University of Oklahoma, College of Public Health. The surveillance system included active and passive methods. Active surveillance involved reviewing imaging studies (such as chest computed tomography and compression ultrasounds) from all inpatient and outpatient facilities. Interrater agreement between surveillance officers collecting data was assessed using κ. Passive surveillance used International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes from hospital discharge data to identify cases. The sensitivity and specificity of various ICD-9-based case definitions will be assessed by comparison with cases identified through active surveillance. As of February 1, 2015, we screened 54,494 (99.5%) of the imaging studies and identified 2,725 case patients, of which 91.6% were from inpatient facilities, and 8.4% were from outpatient facilities. Agreement between surveillance officers was high (κ ≥0.61 for 93.2% of variables). Agreement for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism and diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis was κ = 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.00) and κ = 0.89 (95% CI 0.71-1.00), respectively. This surveillance system will provide data on the accuracy of ICD-9-based case definitions for surveillance of VTE events and help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention develop a national VTE surveillance system.