Vancouver General Hospital Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (VGH PERT): initial three-year experience

Risks and Benefits of Device-Assisted Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the familiarity with this disease, the best treatment remains undefined. Traditionally, treatment of PE has involved a choice of anticoagulation, thrombolysis, or surgery. However, the debate over pharmacologic versus mechanical treatment of acute PE reared up again with the advent of user-friendly mechanical and aspiration thrombectomy technologies. This is especially true for submassive PE, which is an area for potential growth both for understanding the pathophysiology of the disease process and management. Multiple devices are available for treatment of PE. Understanding the risks and benefits of each device is paramount in the complex management of PE.

The Current Evidence of Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams and Their Role in Future

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a critical medical condition requiring prompt and accurate management. The introduction and growing significance of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT), also termed EXPERT-PE teams, signify a paradigm shift toward a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach in managing this complex entity. As the understanding of acute PE continues to evolve, PERTs stand as a linkage of optimized care, offering personalized and evidence-based management strategies for patients afflicted by this life-threatening condition. The evolving role of PERTs globally is evident in their increasing integration into the standard care pathways for acute PE. These teams have demonstrated benefits such as reducing time to diagnosis and treatment initiation, optimizing resource utilization, and improving patient outcomes.

Risk stratification of acute pulmonary embolism

Approximately 5% of pulmonary embolism (PE) cases present with persistent hypotension, obstructive shock, or cardiac arrest. Given the high short-term mortality, management of high-risk PE cases focuses on immediate reperfusion therapies. Risk stratification of normotensive PE is important to identify patients with an elevated risk of hemodynamic collapse or an elevated risk of major bleeding. Risk stratification for short-term hemodynamic collapse includes assessment of physiological parameters, right heart dysfunction, and identification of comorbidities. Validated tools such as European Society of Cardiology guidelines and Bova score can identify normotensive patients with PE and an elevated risk of subsequent hemodynamic collapse. At present, we lack high-quality evidence to recommend one treatment over another (systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, or anticoagulation with close monitoring) for patients at elevated risk of hemodynamic collapse. Newer, less well-validated scores such as BACS and PE-CH may help identify patients at a high risk of major bleeding following systemic thrombolysis. The PE-SARD score may identify those at risk of major anticoagulant-associated bleeding. Patients at low risk of short-term adverse outcomes can be considered for outpatient management. The simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index score or Hestia criteria are safe decision aids when combined with physician global assessment of the need for hospitalization following the diagnosis of PE.

Interventional therapies for pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the leading cause of in-hospital death and the third most frequent cause of cardiovascular death. The clinical presentation of PE is variable, and choosing the appropriate treatment for individual patients can be challenging. Traditionally, treatment of PE has involved a choice of anticoagulation, thrombolysis or surgery; however, a range of percutaneous interventional technologies have been developed that are under investigation in patients with intermediate-high-risk or high-risk PE. These interventional technologies include catheter-directed thrombolysis (with or without ultrasound assistance), aspiration thrombectomy and combinations of the aforementioned principles. These interventional treatment options might lead to a more rapid improvement in right ventricular function and pulmonary and/or systemic haemodynamics in particular patients. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials on the safety and efficacy of these interventions compared with conservative therapies is lacking. In this Review, we discuss the underlying pathophysiology of PE, provide assistance with decision-making on patient selection and critically appraise the available clinical evidence on interventional, catheter-based approaches for PE treatment. Finally, we discuss future perspectives and unmet needs.

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.

Impact of pulmonary embolism response teams on acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) on treatment choice and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is still uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of PERTs in the management and outcomes of patients with PE.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, WorldWideScience and MedRxiv were searched for original articles reporting PERT patient outcomes from 2009. Data were analysed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

16 studies comprising 3827 PERT patients and 3967 controls met inclusion criteria. The PERT group had more patients with intermediate and high-risk PE (66.2%) compared to the control group (48.5%). Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of catheter-directed interventions, systemic thrombolysis and surgical embolectomy (odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-2.53; p<0.01), similar bleeding complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37) and decreased utilisation of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p<0.01) in the PERT group. Furthermore, there was a nonsignificant trend towards decreased mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07; p=0.19) with PERTs.

CONCLUSIONS

The PERT group showed an increased use of advanced therapies and a decreased utilisation of IVC filters. This was not associated with increased bleeding. Despite comprising more severe PE patients, there was a trend towards lower mortality in the PERT group.