Treatment of submassive and massive pulmonary embolism: a clinical practice survey from the second annual meeting of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams-Evidence of Benefits? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Venous thromboembolisms constitute a major cause of morbidity and mortality with 60,000 to 100,000 deaths attributed to pulmonary embolism in the US annually. Both clinical presentations and treatment strategies can vary greatly, and the selection of an appropriate therapeutic strategy is often provider specific. A pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) offers a multidisciplinary approach to clinical decision making and the management of high-risk pulmonary emboli. There is insufficient data on the effect of PERT programs on clinical outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane to identify PERT studies through March 2024. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes included the rates of surgical thrombectomy, catheter directed thrombolysis, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and ICU length of stay (ICULOS). We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool to assess studies' quality. We used random-effects models to compare outcomes between the pooled populations and moderator analysis to identify sources of heterogeneity and perform subgroup analysis. Results: We included 13 observational studies, which comprised a total of 12,586 patients, 7512 (60%) patients were from the pre-PERT period and 5065 (40%) patients were from the PERT period. Twelve studies reported the rate of all-cause mortality for their patient population. Patients in the PERT period were associated with similar odds of all-cause mortality as patients in the pre-PERT period (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 0.80-2.89; p = 0.20). In the random-effects meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in ICULOS between PERT and pre-PERT patients (difference in means: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.49; p = 0.68). There was no statistically significant difference in HLOS between the two groups (difference in means: -0.82; 95% CI: -2.86 to 1.23; p = 0.43). Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates no significant difference in all studied measures in the pre- and post-PERT time periods, which notably included patient mortality and length of stay. Further study into the details of the PERT system at institutions reporting mortality benefits may reveal practice differences that explain the outcome discrepancy and could help optimize PERT implementation at other institutions.

Association of Different Anticoagulation Strategies With Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Background Therapeutic anticoagulation is the cornerstone of treatment for pulmonary embolism (PE), but the impact of different anticoagulation strategies on patient outcomes remains unclear. In this study, we assessed the association of different anticoagulation strategies with the outcomes of patients with acute PE. Methods A retrospective chart review of 207 patients with acute PE who were admitted to one of three urban teaching hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System (in New York City) from January 2020 to September 2022 was performed. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were recorded for all patients. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to assess the association of different outcomes with the approach of therapeutic anticoagulation used. Results The median age of the included patients was 65 years, and 50.2% were women. The most common approach (n = 153, 73.9%) to therapeutic anticoagulation was initial treatment with unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin followed by a direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC), while heparin alone (either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin) was used in 37 (17.9%) patients, and another 17 (8.2%) patients were treated with heparin followed by bridging to warfarin. Hospital length of stay was longer for patients in the "heparin to warfarin" group (risk-adjusted incidence rate ratio of 2.52). The rates of in-hospital bleeding, all-cause 30-day mortality, and all-cause 30-day re-admissions did not have any significant association with the therapeutic anticoagulation approach used. Conclusion Patients with acute PE who were initially treated with heparin and subsequently bridged to warfarin had a longer hospital stay. Rates of in-hospital bleeding, 30-day mortality, and 30-day re-admission were not associated with the strategy of therapeutic anticoagulation employed.

Implementing a Pediatric Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Model: An Institutional Experience

Pulmonary embolism is increasing in prevalence among pediatric patients; although still rare, it can create a significant risk for morbidity and death within the pediatric patient population. Pulmonary embolism presents in various ways depending on the patient, the size of the embolism, and the comorbidities. Treatment decisions are often driven by the severity of the presentation and hemodynamic effects; severe presentations require more invasive and aggressive treatment. We describe the development and implementation of a pediatric pulmonary embolism response team designed to facilitate rapid, multidisciplinary, data-driven treatment decisions and management.

Pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) implementation and its clinical value across countries: a scoping review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Over the last years, multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged to encounter the increasing variety and complexity in the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We aimed to systematically investigate the composition and added clinical value of PERTs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CENTRAL and Web of Science until January 2022 for articles designed to describe the structure and function of PERTs. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of controlled studies (PERT vs. pre-PERT era) to investigate the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes and advanced therapies use.

RESULTS

We included 22 original studies and four surveys. Overall, 31.5% of patients with PE were evaluated by PERT referred mostly by emergency departments (59.4%). In 11 single-arm studies (1532 intermediate-risk and high-risk patients evaluated by PERT) mortality rate was 10%, bleeding rate 9% and length of stay 7.3 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7-8.9]. In nine controlled studies there was no difference in mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19] by comparing pre-PERT with PERT era. When analysing patients with intermediate or high-risk class only, the effect estimate for mortality tended to be lower for patients treated in the PERT era compared to those treated in the pre-PERT era (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45-1.12). The use of advanced therapies was higher (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.29-5.50) and the in-hospital stay shorter (mean difference - 1.6 days) in PERT era compared to pre-PERT era.

CONCLUSIONS

PERT implementation led to greater use of advanced therapies and shorter in-hospital stay. Our meta-analysis did not show a survival benefit in patients with PE since PERT implementation. Large prospective studies are needed to further explore the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/SBFK9.

Catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high risk (massive) and intermediate risk (submassive) acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism (APE) is a major cause of acute morbidity and mortality. APE results in long-term morbidity in up to 50% of survivors, known as post-pulmonary embolism (post-PE) syndrome.  APE can be classified according to the short-term (30-day) risk of mortality, based on a variety of clinical, imaging and laboratory findings. Most mortality and morbidity is concentrated in high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. The first-line treatment for APE is systemic anticoagulation.  High-risk (massive) APE accounts for less than 10% of APE cases and is a life-threatening medical emergency, requiring immediate reperfusion treatment to prevent death. Systemic thrombolysis is the recommended treatment for high-risk (massive) APE. However, only a minority of the people affected receive systemic thrombolysis, due to comorbidities or the 10% risk of major haemorrhagic side effects. Of those who do receive systemic thrombolysis, 8% do not respond in a timely manner. Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is an alternative reperfusion treatment, but is not widely available.  Intermediate-risk (submassive) APE represents 45% to 65% of APE cases, with a short-term mortality rate of around 3%. Systemic thrombolysis is not recommended for this group, as major haemorrhagic complications outweigh the benefit. However, the people at higher risk within this group have a short-term mortality of around 12%, suggesting that anticoagulation alone is not an adequate treatment. Identification and more aggressive treatment of people at intermediate to high risk, who have a more favourable risk profile for reperfusion treatments, could reduce short-term mortality and potentially reduce post-PE syndrome. Catheter-directed treatments (catheter-directed thrombolysis and catheter embolectomy) are minimally invasive reperfusion treatments for high- and intermediate-risk APE. Catheter-directed treatments can be used either as the primary treatment or as salvage treatment after failure of systemic thrombolysis. Catheter-directed thrombolysis administers 10% to 20% of the systemic thrombolysis dose directly into the thrombus in the lungs, potentially reducing the risks of haemorrhagic side effects. Catheter embolectomy mechanically removes the thrombus without the need for thrombolysis, and may be useful for people with contraindications for thrombolysis.  Currently, the benefits of catheter-based APE treatments compared with existing medical and surgical treatment are unclear despite increasing adoption of catheter treatments by PE response teams. This review examines the evidence for the use of catheter-directed treatments in high- and intermediate-risk APE. This evidence could help guide the optimal treatment strategy for people affected by this common and life-threatening condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of catheter-directed therapies versus alternative treatments for high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 15 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high-risk (massive) and intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. We excluded catheter-directed treatments for non-PE. We applied no restrictions on participant age or on the date, language or publication status of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, treatment-associated major and minor haemorrhage rates based on two established clinical definitions, recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one RCT (59 participants) of (ultrasound-augmented) catheter-directed thrombolysis for intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. We found no trials of any catheter-directed treatments (thrombectomy or thrombolysis) in people with high-risk (massive) APE or of catheter-based embolectomy in people with intermediate-risk (submassive) APE. The included trial compared ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase and systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone. In the treatment group, each participant received an infusion of alteplase 10 mg or 20 mg over 15 hours. We identified a high risk of selection and performance bias, low risk of detection and reporting bias, and unclear risk of attrition and other bias. Certainty of evidence was very low because of risk of bias and imprecision.  By 90 days, there was no clear difference in all-cause mortality between the treatment group and control group. A single death occurred in the control group at 20 days after randomisation, but it was unrelated to the treatment or to APE (odds ratio (OR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.96; 59 participants). By 90 days, there were no episodes of treatment-associated major haemorrhage in either the treatment or control group. There was no clear difference in treatment-associated minor haemorrhage between the treatment and control group by 90 days (OR 3.11, 95% CI 0.30 to 31.79; 59 participants). By 90 days, there were no episodes of recurrent APE requiring retreatment or change to a different APE treatment in the treatment or control group. There was no clear difference in the length of mean total hospital stay between the treatment and control groups. Mean stay was 8.9 (standard deviation (SD) 3.4) days in the treatment group versus 8.6 (SD 3.9) days in the control group (mean difference 0.30, 95% CI -1.57 to 2.17; 59 participants). The included trial did not investigate quality of life measures.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence to support widespread adoption of catheter-based interventional therapies for APE. We identified one small trial showing no clear differences between ultrasound-augmented catheter-directed thrombolysis with alteplase plus systemic heparinisation versus systemic heparinisation alone in all-cause mortality, major and minor haemorrhage rates, recurrent APE and length of hospital stay. Quality of life was not assessed.  Multiple small retrospective case series, prospective patient registries and single-arm studies suggest potential benefits of catheter-based treatments, but they provide insufficient evidence to recommend this approach over other evidence-based treatments. Researchers should consider clinically relevant primary outcomes (e.g. mortality and exercise tolerance), rather than surrogate markers (e.g. right ventricular to left ventricular (RV:LV) ratio or thrombus burden), which have limited clinical utility. Trials must include a control group to determine if the effects are specific to the treatment.

Feasibility of anticoagulation using low molecular-weight heparin during catheter-directed thrombolysis for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis

Background

The optimal anticoagulant scheme during catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for deep venous thrombosis (DVT) remains unknown. This study was performed to evaluate the feasibility of anticoagulation therapy using low molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) during CDT for DVT.

Methods

The clinical data of DVT patients who underwent CDT during the past six years was retrospectively collected and reviewed. Patients were divided into therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (TPDA) and sub therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (sub-TPDA) groups according to LMWH dosage.

Results

A total of 61 patients involving 61 limbs were comprised. Acute and subacute DVT were identified in 39 (63.9%) and 22 (36.1%) patients, respectively. Thrombosis involving the iliac vein was identified in 34 (55.7%) patients. Inferior vena cava filter placement was performed in 38 (62.3%) patients. Intraoperatively, adjunctive balloons, stents, and thrombectomy were provided for nine (14.8%), four (6.6%), and one (1.6%) patients, respectively. Twenty (32.8%) patients accepted TPDA therapy, while 41 (67.2%) patients were administrated with sub-TPDA therapy. Median urokinase infusion rate was 2.5 (0.83 to 5) × 10⁴ U/h. Median infusion duration time was 4 (2 to 14) days, and median urokinase dose infused was 2.4 (0.6 to 10.80) × 10⁶ U. During CDT, five (8.2%) cases of minor bleeding were observed, and blood transfusion was not required. No major bleeding, symptomatic pulmonary embolisms, or death occurred. Complete (> 90%) and partial thrombolysis (50 ~ 90%) were achieved in 56 (91.8%) patients. In comparison with sub-TPDA group, TPDA group exhibited no significant differences in baseline characteristics, clinical improvement, thrombolysis results, and complications.

Conclusions

Anticoagulation therapy using low molecular-weight heparin during CDT with low infusion rate for DVT is likely to be feasible and safe. Sub-therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and therapeutic-dose could be used for CDT with similar clinical outcome and bleeding complications.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Position Paper From the National PERT Consortium

The coexistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pulmonary embolism (PE), two life-threatening illnesses, in the same patient presents a unique challenge. Guidelines have delineated how best to diagnose and manage patients with PE. However, the unique aspects of COVID-19 confound both the diagnosis and treatment of PE, and therefore require modification of established algorithms. Important considerations include adjustment of diagnostic modalities, incorporation of the prothrombotic contribution of COVID-19, management of two critical cardiorespiratory illnesses in the same patient, and protecting patients and health-care workers while providing optimal care. The benefits of a team-based approach for decision-making and coordination of care, such as that offered by pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs), have become more evident in this crisis. The importance of careful follow-up care also is underscored for patients with these two diseases with long-term effects. This position paper from the PERT Consortium specifically addresses issues related to the diagnosis and management of PE in patients with COVID-19.

Bleeding, death, and costs of care during hospitalization for acute pulmonary embolism: Insights from the Saint Luke's Outcomes of Pulmonary Embolism (SLOPE) study

Limited data exist that comprehensively describe the practical management, in-hospital outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and rates of post-hospital readmission among patients with submassive and massive pulmonary embolism (PE). Consecutive discharges for acute PE were identified from a single health system over 3 years. Records were audited to confirm presence of acute PE, patient characteristics, disease severity, medical treatment, and PE-related invasive therapies. Rates of in-hospital major bleeding and death, hospital length of stay (LOS), direct costs, and hospital readmission are reported. From January 2016 to December 2018, 371 patients were hospitalized for acute massive or submassive PE. In-hospital major bleeding (12.1%) was common, despite low utilization of systemic thrombolysis (1.8%) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (3.0%). In-hospital death was 10-fold higher among massive PE compared to submassive PE (36.6% vs 3.3%, p < 0.001). Massive PE was more common during hospitalizations not primarily related to venous thromboembolism, including hospitalizations primarily for sepsis or infection (26.8% vs 8.2%, p = 0.001). Overall, the median LOS was 6.0 days (IQR, 3.0-11.0) and the median standardized direct cost of admissions was $10,032 (IQR, $4467-$20,330). Rates of all-cause readmission were relatively high throughout late follow-up but did not differ between PE subgroups. Despite low utilization of thrombolysis, in-hospital bleeding remains a common adverse event during hospitalizations for acute PE. Although massive PE is associated with high risk for in-hospital bleeding and death, those successfully discharged after a massive PE demonstrate similar rates of readmission compared to submassive PE into late follow-up.

Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Purpose of the Review

Over 100,000 cardiovascular-related deaths annually are caused by acute pulmonary embolism (PE). While anticoagulation has historically been the foundation for treatment of PE, this review highlights the recent rapid expansion in the interventional strategies for this condition.

Recent Findings

At the time of diagnosis, appropriate risk stratification helps to accurately identify patients who may be candidates for advanced therapeutic interventions. While systemic thrombolytics (ST) is the mostly commonly utilized intervention for high-risk PE, the risk profile of ST for intermediate-risk PE limits its use. Assessment of an individualized patient risk profile, often via a multidisciplinary pulmonary response team (PERT) model, there are various interventional strategies to consider for PE management. Novel therapeutic options include catheter-directed thrombolysis, catheter-based embolectomy, or mechanical circulatory support for certain high-risk PE patients. Current data has established safety and efficacy for catheter-based treatment of PE based on surrogate outcome measures. However, there is limited long-term data or prospective comparisons between treatment modalities and ST. While PE diagnosis has improved with modern cross-sectional imaging, there is interest in improved diagnostic models for PE that incorporate artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques.

Summary

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, after appropriate risk stratification, some intermediate and high-risk patients should be considered for interventional-based treatment for PE.

Safety of Therapeutic Anticoagulation with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin or Unfractionated Heparin Infusion during Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Pulmonary Embolism

PURPOSE

To examine the safety of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation during catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for acute pulmonary embolism (PE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 156 consecutive cases (age, 56.6 ± 15.4 years; 85 males) of CDT with alteplase for acute PE (symptoms, <14 days) between 2009 and 2019 was performed. All patients received full-dose anticoagulation before, during, and after thrombolysis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (n = 45) or unfractionated heparin (n = 111) infusion. Massive PE was diagnosed in 21 of 156 patients at presentation; submassive PE was diagnosed in 135 of 156 patients at presentation. The Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index was ≥1 in 69 of 156 patients.

RESULTS

There were 4 mild (2.6%), 3 moderate (1.9%), and 3 severe (1.9%) hemorrhagic complications (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries), 1 of which (0.6%) was intracranial. No significant differences in hemorrhagic complication rates (P = .3, P = 1.0, and P = .6, respectively) or general complication rates (Society of Interventional Radiology [SIR] minor, P = .2; SIR major, P = .7) were noted between the LMWH and heparin groups. Mean pulmonary arterial pressure for the entire cohort improved from 28.9 ± 7.6 mmHg to 20.4 ± 6.5 mmHg (P < .001), whereas the Miller score improved from 19.3 ± 4.6 to 7.3 ± 3.9 (P < .001). The average infusion duration was 26 ± 11.9 hours over 2.3 ± 0.6 total visits to the angiography lab, during which a mean of 27.85 ± 14.2 mg of tissue plasminogen activator were infused.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic anticoagulation during CDT for PE appears to be safe. The current study did not find a significant difference between LMWH and heparin infusion with respect to hemorrhagic and general complication rates.

The impact of a pulmonary embolism response team on the efficiency of patient care in the emergency department

The concept of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is multidisciplinary, with the hope that it may positively impact patient care, hospital efficiency, and outcomes in the treatment of patients with intermediate and high risk pulmonary embolism (PE). Clinical characteristics of a baseline population of patients presenting with submassive and massive PE to URMC between 2014 and 2016 were examined (n = 159). We compared this baseline population before implementation of a PERT to a similar population of patients at 3-month periods, and then as a group at 18 months after PERT implementation (n = 146). Outcomes include management strategies and efficiency of the emergency department (ED) in diagnosing, treating, and dispositioning patients. Before PERT, patients with submassive and massive PE were managed fairly conservatively: heparin alone (85%), or additional advanced therapies (15%). Following PERT, submassive and massive PE were managed as follows: heparin alone (68%), or additional advanced therapies (32%). Efficiency of the ED in managing high risk PE significantly improved after PERT compared with before PERT; where triage to diagnosis time was reduced (384 vs. 212 min, 45% decrease, p = 0.0001), diagnosis to heparin time was reduced (182 vs. 76 min, 58% decrease, p = 0.0001), and the time from triage to disposition was reduced (392 vs. 290 min, 26% decrease, p < 0.0001). Our analysis showed that following PERT implementation, patients with intermediate and high risk acute PE received more aggressive and advanced treatment modalities and received significantly expedited care in the ED.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams: Pursuing Excellence in the Care for Venous Thromboembolism

Acute pulmonary embolism remains a catastrophic acute cardiovascular event, and it is the leading cause of preventable mortality among hospitalized patients. Pulmonary embolism response teams have been designed to facilitate efficiency, streamline and improve quality of care in a timely manner for complex pulmonary embolism case scenarios with a multidisciplinary approach. Herein, we briefly describe and delineate the main goals and strategies on how to leverage the strengths from such pulmonary embolism response teams, with the aim to be adopted worldwide, improve survival, and change the paradigm in the care of a potentially deadly disease.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Purpose, evidence for efficacy, and future research directions

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although new therapeutic tools and strategies have recently been developed for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with PE, the outcomes for patients who present with massive or high-risk PE remain dismal. To address this crisis, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being created around the world in an effort to immediately and simultaneously engage multiple specialists to determine the best course of action and coordinate the clinical care for patients with acute PE. The scope of this review is to describe the PERT model and purpose, present the structure and organization, examine the available evidence for efficacy and usefulness, and propose future directions for research that is needed to demonstrate the value of PERT and determine if this multidisciplinary approach represents a new standard of care.

Age-dependent diagnostic accuracy of clinical scoring systems and D-dimer levels in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the age-dependent diagnostic performance of clinical scores and D-dimer testing to identify patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with suspected PE referred from the emergency department for computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) were retrospectively evaluated. Diagnostic scores (classic Wells score (WS), modified WS, simplified WS, revised Geneva score (GS), simplified GS, and YEARS score) were calculated from medical records. Results of D-dimer testing were retrieved from the laboratory database. CTPA was the diagnostic reference standard. Four age groups were analyzed (< 50, 50-64, 65-74, and ≥ 75 years). Statistical analysis used receiver operating characteristics as well as uni- and multivariate analyses with calculation of prediction models. The study was IRB approved.

RESULTS

One thousand consecutive patients were included. Areas under the curve (AUC) and accuracies were superior in patients < 50 years. For the classic WS, the AUC decreased by 11% with the optimal cutoff dropping 1.5 points in patients ≥ 75 years; for D-dimer levels, the optimal cutoff was 900 μg/L higher in both ≥ 65 years groups with a max. decrease of the AUC of 9%. In terms of accuracy, the YEARS score performed best across all groups. Classic WS and D-dimer level showed a significant interaction with patient age in prediction models.

CONCLUSION

D-dimer measurement and clinical scores perform best in patients < 50 years. The YEARS score performs best across all age groups and is therefore recommended.

KEY POINTS

• The probability of pulmonary embolism predicted by fibrin fibrinogen degradation products and clinical scores shows the highest accuracy in patients < 50 years. • The probability of pulmonary embolism predicted by the YEARS score shows the highest accuracy in each age group. • Classic Wells score and fibrin fibrinogen degradation products show a significant interaction with patient age in a logistic regression model.

EXPRESS: A Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) - Experience from a national multicenter consortium

Background

We provide the first multicenter analysis of patients cared for by eight Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) in the United States (US); describing the frequency of team activation, patient characteristics, pulmonary embolism (PE) severity, treatments delivered, and outcomes.

Methods

We enrolled patients from the National PERT Consortium™ multicenter registry with a PERT activation between 18 October 2016 and 17 October 2017. Data are presented combined and by PERT institution. Differences between institutions were analyzed using chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, and ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables, with a two-sided P value < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

There were 475 unique PERT activations across the Consortium, with acute PE confirmed in 416 (88%). The number of activations at each institution ranged from 3 to 13 activations/month/1000 beds with the majority originating from the emergency department (281/475; 59.3%). The largest percentage of patients were at intermediate–low (141/416, 34%) and intermediate–high (146/416, 35%) risk of early mortality, while fewer were at high-risk (51/416, 12%) and low-risk (78/416, 19%). The distribution of risk groups varied significantly between institutions (P  = 0.002). Anticoagulation alone was the most common therapy, delivered to 289/416 (70%) patients with confirmed PE. The proportion of patients receiving any advanced therapy varied between institutions (P  = 0.0003), ranging from 16% to 46%. The 30-day mortality was 16% (53/338), ranging from 9% to 44%.

Conclusions

The frequency of team activation, PE severity, treatments delivered, and 30-day mortality varies between US PERTs. Further research should investigate the sources of this variability.