Trends in Pulmonary Embolism Deaths Among Young Adults Aged 25 to 44 Years in the United States, 1999 to 2019

Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Evidence, Innovation, and Horizons

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The goal of this review is to discuss the most up-to-date literature on epidemiology, diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of acute PE.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite an increase in annual incidence rate of PE in the United States and development of multiple advanced therapies for treatment of acute PE, PE-related mortality is not consistently decreasing across populations. Although multiple risk stratification schemes have been developed, it is still unclear which advanced therapy should be used for the individual patient and optimal timing. Fortunately, multiple randomized clinical trials are underway to answer these questions. Nevertheless, up to 50% of patients have persistent reduced quality of life 6 months after acute PE, termed post-PE syndrome. Despite advances in therapeutic options for management of acute PE, many questions remain unanswered, including optimal risk stratification and management of acute PE.

Optimal hemodynamic parameters for risk stratification in acute pulmonary embolism patients

Hemodynamic assessment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a fundamental component of early risk stratification that in turn, influences subsequent monitoring and therapeutic strategies. The current body of literature and international evidence-based clinical practice guidelines focus mainly on the use of systolic blood pressure (SBP). The accuracy of this single hemodynamic parameter, however, and its optimal values for the identification of hemodynamic instability have been recently questioned by clinicians. For example, abnormal SBP or shock index may be a late indicator of adverse outcomes, signaling a patient in whom the cascade of hemodynamic compromise is already well underway. The aim of the present article is to review the current evidence supporting the use of SBP and analyze the potential integration of other parameters to assess the hemodynamic stability, impending clinical deterioration, and guide the reperfusion treatment in patients with PE, as well as to suggest potential strategies to further investigate this issue.

Trends of Pulmonary Embolism-Related Sudden Cardiac Death in the United States, 1999-2019

OBJECTIVES

Up-to-date population-based data on pulmonary embolism (PE)-related sudden cardiac death (SCD) mortality trends in the United States (US) are scant. We assess the current trends in PE-related SCD mortality in US over the past two decades and determine differences by sex, race, ethnicity, age, and census region.

METHODS

We extracted PE-related SCD mortality rates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) database from 1999 to 2019, in patients aged ≥ 15 years old. Age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) were assessed using the Joinpoint regression modeling and expressed as estimated average annual percentage change (AAPC) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Between 1999 and 2019, the AAMR from acute PE-related SCD mortality in the US linearly increased [AAPC: +2.4% (95% CI: 2.2 to 2.6), p < 0.001)]. The AAMR increase was more pronounced in men [AAPC: +2.8% (95% CI: 2.6 to 2.9), p < 0.001], Whites [AAPC: +2.7% (95% CI: 2.3 to 3.1), p < 0.001], Latinx/Hispanic patients [AAPC:+2.0% (95% CI: 1.2 to 2.8), p < 0.001], subjects younger than 65 years [AAPC: +2.4% (95% CI: 2.1 to 2.6), p < 0.001] and in residents of rural areas [AAPC: +3.6% (95% CI: 3.3 to 3.9), p < 0.001]. Moreover, higher percentages of PE-related SCD and the relative absolute number of deaths were observed in the South compared with other geographical regions.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-related SCD mortality in the US has increased over the last two decades. Stratification by race, ethnicity, urbanization, and census region demonstrates ethnoracial and regional disparities that require further investigation and remedy.

Addressing the rising trend of high-risk pulmonary embolism mortality: Clinical and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Deaths from high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) appear to have increased in the US over the last decade. Modifiable risks contributing to this worrisome trend present opportunities for physicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers to improve care.

METHODS

We sought to contextualize contemporary, high-risk PE epidemiology and examine clinical trials, quality improvement opportunities, and healthcare policy initiatives directed at reducing mortality.

RESULTS

We observed significant and modifiable excess mortality due to high-risk PE. We identified several opportunities to improve care including: (1) rapid translation of forthcoming data on reperfusion strategies into clinical practice; (2) improved risk stratification tools; (3) quality improvement initiatives to address presumptive anticoagulation practice gaps; and (3) adoption of health policy initiatives to establish pulmonary embolism response teams and address the social determinants of health.

CONCLUSION

Addressing knowledge and practice gaps in intermediate and high-risk PE management must be prioritized and informed by forthcoming high-quality data. Implementation efforts are needed to improve acute PE management and resolve treatment disparities.

High and intermediate risk pulmonary embolism in the ICU

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common and important medical emergency, encountered by clinicians across all acute care specialties. PE is a relatively uncommon cause of direct admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), but these patients are at high risk of death. More commonly, patients admitted to ICU develop PE as a complication of an unrelated acute illness. This paper reviews the epidemiology, diagnosis, risk stratification, and particularly the management of PE from a critical care perspective. Issues around prevention, anticoagulation, fibrinolysis, catheter-based techniques, surgical embolectomy, and extracorporeal support are discussed.

Provoked vs minimally provoked vs unprovoked VTE: does it matter?

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a multifactorial disease, and its risk depends on exposure to risk factors and predisposing conditions. Based on their strength of association with a VTE episode, risk factors are classified as major or minor and determined using a temporal pattern to be transient or persistent. All patients with VTE should receive anticoagulant treatment for at least 3 months in the absence of an absolute contraindication. Beyond this period, selected patients may be candidates for an extended phase of anticoagulation aimed at secondary VTE prevention. The risk of recurrent VTE if anticoagulation is discontinued is probably the main driver of decision-making regarding extended treatment. The risk of recurrence after VTE associated with major risk factors is low if the risk factor is no longer present. In this case, treatment can be discontinued. If the major risk factor is persistent, anticoagulation should be continued. After VTE occurring in the absence of risk factors, anticoagulation should probably be continued indefinitely if the risk for bleeding is low and preferably with minimal effective doses of anticoagulants. VTE occurring after exposure to minor risk factors is probably the most challenging situation, especially if the clinical manifestation was acute pulmonary embolism. Understanding the actual role of minor risk factors in the occurrence of VTE helps in estimating the risk of recurrence and avoiding the dangers associated with unnecessary anticoagulation. The availability of safer strategies for anticoagulation could allow personalized strategies for secondary prevention of VTE.