Outcomes considered most important by emergency physicians when determining disposition of patients with pulmonary embolism

Expanding outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism to the pregnant population: a case series

Background

Outpatient treatment of pregnant patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is recommended by some obstetric and haematology societies but has not been described in the literature. Little is known about patient selection and clinical outcomes.

Case summary

We report two cases of pregnant patients diagnosed with acute PE. The first, at 9 weeks of gestational age, presented to the emergency department with 12 h of pleuritic chest pain and was diagnosed with segmental PE. She was normotensive and tachycardic without evidence of right ventricular dysfunction. She received multispecialty evaluation, was deemed suitable for outpatient management, and, after 12 h of monitoring, was discharged home on enoxaparin with close follow-up. The second case, at 30 weeks of gestational age, presented to obstetrics clinic with 3 days of dyspnoea. Vital signs were normal except for tachycardia. She was referred to labour and delivery, where she was diagnosed with segmental PE. Her vital signs were stable, and she had no evidence of right ventricular dysfunction. After 6 h of monitoring, she was discharged home on enoxaparin with close follow-up. Neither patient developed antenatal complications from their PE or its treatment.

Discussion

This case series is the first to our knowledge to describe patient and treatment characteristics of pregnant patients with acute PE cared for as outpatients. We propose a definition for this phenomenon and discuss the benefits of and provisional selection criteria for outpatient PE management, while engaging with professional society guidelines and the literature. This understudied practice warrants further research.

Quality of life 1 month after acute pulmonary embolism in emergency department patients

OBJECTIVE

The Pulmonary Embolism Quality-of-Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire assesses quality of life (QoL) after pulmonary embolism (PE). We aimed to determine whether any clinical or pathophysiologic features of PE were associated with worse PEmb-QoL scores 1 month after PE.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter registry, we conducted PEmb-QoL questionnaires. We determined differences in QoL domain scores for four primary variables: clinical deterioration (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, hypotension requiring fluid bolus, catecholamine support, or new dysrhythmia), right ventricular dysfunction (RVD), PE risk stratification, and subsequent rehospitalization. For overall QoL score, we fit a multivariable regression model that included these four primary variables as independent variables.

RESULTS

Of 788 PE patients participating in QoL assessments, 156 (19.8%) had a clinical deterioration event, 236 (30.7%) had RVD of which 38 (16.1%) had escalated interventions. For those without and with clinical deterioration, social limitations had mean (±SD) scores of 2.07 (±1.27) and 2.36 (±1.47), respectively (p = 0.027). For intensity of complaints, mean (±SD) scores for patients without RVD (4.32 ± 2.69) were significantly higher than for those with RVD with or without reperfusion interventions (3.82 ± 1.81 and 3.83 ± 2.11, respectively; p = 0.043). There were no domain score differences between PE risk stratification groups. All domain scores were worse for patients with rehospitalization versus without. By multivariable analysis, worse total PEmb-QoL scores with effect sizes were subsequent rehospitalization 11.29 (6.68-15.89), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 8.17 (3.91-12.43), and longer index hospital length of stay 0.06 (0.03-0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Acute clinical deterioration, RVD, and PE severity were not predictors of QoL at 1 month post-PE. Independent predictors of worsened QoL were rehospitalization, COPD, and index hospital length of stay.

Can right ventricular assessments improve triaging of low risk pulmonary embolism?

OBJECTIVES

Identifying right ventricle (RV) abnormalities is important to stratifying pulmonary embolism (PE) severity. Disposition decisions are influenced by concerns about early deterioration. Triaging strategies, like the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI), do not include RV assessments as predictors or early deterioration as outcome(s). We aimed to (1) determine if RV assessment variables add prognostic accuracy for 5-day clinical deterioration in patients classified low risk by sPESI, and (2) determine the prognostic importance of RV assessments compared to other variables and to each other.

METHODS

We identified low risk sPESI patients (sPESI = 0) from a prospective PE registry. From a large field of candidate variables, we developed, and compared prognostic accuracy of, full and reduced random forest models (with and without RV assessment variables, respectively) on a validation database. We reported variable importance plots from full random forest and provided odds ratios for statistical inference of importance from multivariable logistic regression. Outcomes were death, cardiac arrest, hypotension, dysrhythmia, or respiratory failure within 5 days of PE.

RESULTS

Of 1736 patients, 610 (35.1%) were low risk by sPESI and 72 (11.8%) experienced early deterioration. Of the 610, RV abnormality was present in 157 (25.7%) by CT, 121 (19.8%) by echocardiography, 132 (21.6%) by natriuretic peptide, and 107 (17.5%) by troponin. For deterioration, the receiver operating characteristics for full and reduced random forest prognostic models were 0.80 (0.77-0.82) and 0.71 (0.68-0.73), respectively. RV assessments were the top four in the variable importance plot for the random forest model. Echocardiography and CT significantly increased predicted probability of 5-day clinical deterioration by the multivariable logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

A PE triaging strategy with RV imaging assessments had superior prognostic performance at classifying low risk for 5-day clinical deterioration versus one without.

Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE)

OBJECTIVE

Develop and validate a prognostic model for clinical deterioration or death within days of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using point-of-care criteria.

METHODS

We used prospective registry data from six emergency departments. The primary composite outcome was death or deterioration (respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, new dysrhythmia, sustained hypotension, and rescue reperfusion intervention) within 5 days. Candidate predictors included laboratory and imaging right ventricle (RV) assessments. The prognostic model was developed from 935 PE patients. Univariable analysis of 138 candidate variables was followed by penalized and standard logistic regression on 26 retained variables, and then tested with a validation database (N = 801).

RESULTS

Logistic regression yielded a nine-variable model, then simplified to a nine-point tool (PE-SCORE): one point each for abnormal RV by echocardiography, abnormal RV by computed tomography, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, dysrhythmia, suspected/confirmed systemic infection, syncope, medico-social admission reason, abnormal heart rate, and two points for creatinine greater than 2.0 mg/dL. In the development database, 22.4% had the primary outcome. Prognostic accuracy of logistic regression model versus PE-SCORE model: 0.83 (0.80, 0.86) vs. 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) using area under the curve (AUC) and 0.61 (0.57, 0.64) vs. 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) using precision-recall curve (AUCpr). In the validation database, 26.6% had the primary outcome. PE-SCORE had AUC 0.77 (0.73, 0.81) and AUCpr 0.63 (0.43, 0.81). As points increased, outcome proportions increased: a score of zero had 2% outcome, whereas scores of six and above had ≥ 69.6% outcomes. In the validation dataset, PE-SCORE zero had 8% outcome [no deaths], whereas all patients with PE-SCORE of six and above had the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-SCORE model identifies PE patients at low- and high-risk for deterioration and may help guide decisions about early outpatient management versus need for hospital-based monitoring.

Hospitalization Is Less Common in Ambulatory Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosed Before Emergency Department Referral Than After Arrival

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) may undergo diagnostic pulmonary imaging as an outpatient before referral to the ED for definitive management. This population has not been well characterized.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included ambulatory adults with acute objectively confirmed PE across 21 EDs in an integrated health care system from January 1, 2013, through April 30, 2015. We excluded patients arriving by ambulance. We compared outpatients with diagnostic pulmonary imaging in the 12 hours prior to ED arrival (the clinic-based cohort) with those receiving imaging for PE only after ED arrival. We reported adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for hospitalization, adjusted for race, presyncope or syncope, proximal clot location, and PE Severity Index class.

RESULTS

Among 2,352 eligible ED patients with acute PE, 344 (14.6%) had a clinic-based diagnosis. This cohort had lower PE Severity Index classification and were less likely to be hospitalized than their counterparts with an ED-based diagnosis: 80.8% vs. 92.0% (p < 0.0001). The inverse association with hospitalization persisted after adjusting for the above patient characteristics with aOR of 0.36 (95% CI = 0.26 to 0.50).

CONCLUSION

In the study setting, ambulatory outpatients with acute PE are commonly diagnosed before ED arrival. A clinic-based diagnosis of PE identifies ED patients less likely to be hospitalized. Research is needed to identify which patients with a clinic-based PE diagnosis may not require transfer to the ED before home discharge.

Increasing Safe Outpatient Management of Emergency Department Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: A Controlled Pragmatic Trial

BACKGROUND

Many low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) are eligible for outpatient care but are hospitalized nonetheless. One impediment to home discharge is the difficulty of identifying which patients can safely forgo hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an integrated electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate risk stratification and decision making at the site of care for patients with acute PE.

DESIGN

Controlled pragmatic trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03601676).

SETTING

All 21 community EDs of an integrated health care delivery system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California).

PATIENTS

Adult ED patients with acute PE.

INTERVENTION

Ten intervention sites selected by convenience received a multidimensional technology and education intervention at month 9 of a 16-month study period (January 2014 to April 2015); the remaining 11 sites served as concurrent controls.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was discharge to home from either the ED or a short-term (<24-hour) outpatient observation unit based in the ED. Adverse outcomes included return visits for PE-related symptoms within 5 days and recurrent venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality within 30 days. A difference-in-differences approach was used to compare pre-post changes at intervention versus control sites, with adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Among 881 eligible patients diagnosed with PE at intervention sites and 822 at control sites, adjusted home discharge increased at intervention sites (17.4% pre- to 28.0% postintervention) without a concurrent increase at control sites (15.1% pre- and 14.5% postintervention). The difference-in-differences comparison was 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0 to 19.5 percentage points; P = 0.007). No increases were seen in 5-day return visits related to PE or in 30-day major adverse outcomes associated with CDSS implementation.

LIMITATION

Lack of random allocation.

CONCLUSION

Implementation and structured promotion of a CDSS to aid physicians in site-of-care decision making for ED patients with acute PE safely increased outpatient management.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Garfield Memorial National Research Fund and The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Physician Researcher Programs.

Clinical presentation and in-hospital death in acute pulmonary embolism: does cancer matter?

Cancer is one of the most common risk factors for acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but only few studies report on the short-term outcome of patients with PE and a history of cancer. The aim of the study was to assess whether a cancer diagnosis affects the clinical presentation and short-term outcome in patients hospitalized for PE who were included in the Italian Pulmonary Embolism Registry. All-cause and PE-related in-hospital deaths were also analyzed. Out of 1702 patients, 451 (26.5 %) of patients had a diagnosis of cancer: cancer was known at presentation in 365, or diagnosed during the hospital stay for PE in 86 (19 % of cancer patients). Patients with and without cancer were similar concerning clinical status at presentation. Patients with cancer less commonly received thrombolytic therapy, and more often had an inferior vena cava filter inserted. Major or intracranial bleeding was not different between groups. In-hospital all-cause death occurred in 8.4 and 5.9 % of patients with and without cancer, respectively. At multivariate analysis, cancer (OR 2.24, 95 % CI 1.27-3.98; P = 0.006) was an independent predictor of in-hospital death. Clinical instability, PE recurrence, age ≥75 years, recent bed rest ≥3 days, but not cancer, were independent predictors of in-hospital death due to PE. Cancer seems a weaker predictor of all-cause in-hospital death compared to other factors; the mere presence of cancer, without other risk factors, leads to a probability of early death of 2 %. In patients with acute PE, cancer increases the probability of in-hospital all-cause death, but does not seem to affect the clinical presentation or the risk of in-hospital PE-related death.

Impact of relative contraindications to home management in emergency department patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism

RATIONALE

Studies of adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) suggest that those who are low risk on the PE Severity Index (classes I and II) can be managed safely without hospitalization. However, the impact of relative contraindications to home management on outcomes has not been described.

OBJECTIVES

To compare 5-day and 30-day adverse event rates among low-risk ED patients with acute PE without and with outpatient ineligibility criteria.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study of adults presenting to the ED with acute low-risk PE between 2010 and 2012. We evaluated the association between outpatient treatment eligibility criteria based on a comprehensive list of relative contraindications and 5-day adverse events and 30-day outcomes, including major hemorrhage, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and all-cause mortality.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 423 adults with acute low-risk PE, 271 (64.1%) had no relative contraindications to outpatient treatment (outpatient eligible), whereas 152 (35.9%) had at least one contraindication (outpatient ineligible). Relative contraindications were categorized as PE-related factors (n = 112; 26.5%), comorbid illness (n = 42; 9.9%), and psychosocial barriers (n = 19; 4.5%). There were no 5-day events in the outpatient-eligible group (95% upper confidence limit, 1.7%) and two events (1.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-5.0%) in the outpatient-ineligible group (P = 0.13). At 30 days, there were five events (two recurrent venous thromboemboli and three major bleeding events) in the outpatient-eligible group (1.8%; 95% CI, 0.7-4.4%) compared with nine in the ineligible group (5.9%; 95% CI, 2.7-10.9%; P < 0.05). This difference remained significant when controlling for PE severity class.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly two-thirds of adults presenting to the ED with low-risk PE were potentially eligible for outpatient therapy. Relative contraindications to outpatient management were associated with an increased frequency of adverse events at 30 days among adults with low-risk PE.

Association between the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and short-term clinical deterioration

The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) has been shown to predict 30 and 90 day mortality after PE. However, whether the PESI predicts patients who will be free of clinically adverse outcomes during a typical hospitalisation is not known. Retrospective analysis of Emergency Department patients with PE from May 2006 to April 2008. We compiled demographics, data to calculate the PESI and a composite outcome. Patients were considered to have a negative PESI if they were in category I or II (≤85 points). Patients were considered to have the composite outcome if, within five days of diagnosis, they: A) had recurrent PE; B) developed a new cardiac dysrhythmia; C) required advanced cardiac life support; D) required respiratory support; E) required vasopressors; F) received thrombolysis; G) had major bleeding; H) returned to the ED; I) died. We enrolled 245 patients with PE. Of these, 115 (47%) were male, 204 (83%) were white. The mean age was 57 ± 17 years. The PESI identified 109 (44%) as low risk and 136 (56%) as high risk. Sixty-one (26%) patients had the outcome, of whom nine (14%) were characterised as low risk by the PESI. Test characteristics were: sensitivity 86% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75%-93%), specificity 55% (95% CI: 47%-62%), NPV 63% (95% CI: 55%-70%), PPV 40% (95% CI: 31%-49%), LR(+) 1.9 (95% CI: 1.57-2.30) and LR(-) 0.26 (95% CI: 0.14-0.48). Of the patients who had an adverse clinical event or required a hospital-based intervention within the first five days after PE diagnosis, 14% were categorised by the PESI as safe for discharge [corrected] .