Changes in Care for Acute Pulmonary Embolism Through A Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team

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.

Multidisciplinary Care Teams in Acute Cardiovascular Care: A Review of Composition, Logistics, Outcomes, Training, and Future Directions

As cardiovascular care continues to advance and with an aging population with higher comorbidities, the epidemiology of the cardiac intensive care unit has undergone a paradigm shift. There has been increasing emphasis on the development of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) for providing holistic care to complex critically ill patients, analogous to heart teams for chronic cardiovascular care. Outside of cardiovascular medicine, MDTs in critical care medicine focus on implementation of guideline-directed care, prevention of iatrogenic harm, communication with patients and families, point-of-care decision-making, and the development of care plans. MDTs in acute cardiovascular care include physicians from cardiovascular medicine, critical care medicine, interventional cardiology, cardiac surgery, and advanced heart failure, in addition to nonphysician team members. In this document, we seek to describe the changes in patients in the cardiac intensive care unit, health care delivery, composition, logistics, outcomes, training, and future directions for MDTs involved in acute cardiovascular care. As a part of the comprehensive review, we performed a scoping of concepts of MDTs, acute hospital care, and cardiovascular conditions and procedures.

Multidisciplinary Approach to Pulmonary Embolism and the Role of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular death and morbidity, and presents a major burden to healthcare systems. The field has seen rapid growth with development of innovative clot reduction technologies, as well as ongoing multicenter trials that may completely revolutionize care of PE patients. However, current paucity of robust clinical trials and guidelines often leave individual physicians managing patients with acute PE in a dilemma.

RECENT FINDINGS

The pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) was developed as a platform to rapidly engage multiple specialists to deliver evidence-based, organized and efficient care and help address some of the gaps in knowledge. Several centers investigating outcomes following implementation of PERT have demonstrated shorter hospital and intensive-care unit stays, lower use of inferior vena cava filters, and in some instances improved mortality. Since the advent of PERT, early findings demonstrate promise with improved outcomes after implementation of PERT. Incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into PERT has also shown promise with more streamlined care and reducing response times. Further clinical trials are needed to examine the impact of PERT model on care delivery and clinical outcomes.

Evolution of Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams in the United States: A Review of the Literature

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a significant cause of cardiovascular mortality, with varying presentations and management challenges. Traditional treatment approaches often differ, particularly for submassive/intermediate-risk PEs, because of the lack of clear guidelines and comparative data on treatment efficacy. The introduction of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) aims to standardize and improve outcomes in acute PE management through multidisciplinary collaboration. This review examines the conception, evolution, and operational mechanisms of PERTs while providing a critical analysis of their implementation and efficacy using retrospective trials and recent randomized trials. The study also explores the integration of advanced therapeutic devices and treatment protocols facilitated by PERTs. PERT programs have significantly influenced the management of both massive and submassive PEs, with notable improvements in clinical outcomes such as decreased mortality and reduced length of hospital stay. The utilization of advanced therapies, including catheter-directed thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, has increased under PERT guidance. Evidence from various studies, including those from the National PERT Consortium, underscores the benefits of these multidisciplinary teams in managing complex PE cases, despite some studies showing no significant difference in mortality. PERT programs have demonstrated potentials to reduce morbidity and mortality, streamlining the use of healthcare resources and fostering a model of sustainable practice across medical centers. PERT program implementation appears to have improved PE treatment protocols and innovated advanced therapy options, which will be further refined as they are employed in clinical practice. The continued expansion of the capabilities of PERTs and the forthcoming results from ongoing randomized trials are expected to further define and optimize management protocols for acute PEs.

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.

Reduced mortality associated with pulmonary embolism response team consultation for intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has become increasingly complex with the expansion of advanced therapeutic options, resulting in the development and widespread adoption of multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs). Much of the literature evaluating the impact of PERTs has been limited by pre- postimplementation study design, leading to confounding by changes in global practice patterns over time, and has yielded mixed results. To address this ambiguity, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of the distinct exposures of PERT availability and direct PERT consultation.

METHODS

At a single tertiary center, we conducted propensity-matched analyses of hospitalized patients with intermediate or high-risk PE. To assess the impact of PERT availability, we evaluated the changes in 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay (HLOS), time to therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC), in-hospital bleeding complications, and use of advanced therapies between the two years preceding and following PERT implementation. To evaluate the impact of direct PERT consultation, we conducted the same analyses in the post-PERT era, comparing patients who did and did not receive PERT consultation.

RESULTS

Six hundred eighty four patients were included, of which 315 were pre-PERT patients. Of the 367 postPERT patients, 201 received PERT consultation. For patients who received PERT consultation, we observed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (5% vs 20%, OR 0.38, p = 0.0024), HLOS. (-5.4 days, p < 0.001), TAC (-0.25 h, p = 0.041), and in-hospital bleeding (OR 0.28, p = 0.011). These differences were not observed evaluating the impact of PERT presence in pre-vs postimplementation eras.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality, hospital LOS, TAC, and in-hospital bleeding complications for patients who received PERT consultation without an observed difference in these metrics when comparing the pre- vs post-implementation eras. This suggests the benefits stem from direct PERT involvement rather than the mere existence of PERT. Our data supports that PERT consultation may provide benefit to patients with acute intermediate or high-risk PE and can be achieved without a concomitant increase in advanced therapies.

The paradigm shift in treatment of severe venous thromboembolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third leading cause of cardiovascular death and the main cause of preventable in-hospital death in the world. The PERT® (Pulmonary Embolism Response Team) concept involves multidisciplinary diagnosis and immediate treatment. Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is the initial cause of most cases of PE and is responsible for complications such as chronic thromboembolic recurrence, postthrombotic syndrome, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. An aggressive approach to severe cases of iliofemoral DVT similar to the PERT® system can not only reduce the immediate risk of PE and death but can also reduce later sequelae. New percutaneous techniques and mechanical thrombectomy devices for venous thromboembolism (VTE) have shown encouraging clinical results. We propose the development of an expanded concept of rapid response to VTE, which involves not only PE (PERT®) but also severe cases of DVT: the Venous Thromboembolism Response Team (VTERT®).

Impact of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) in the prognosis of patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

The effect of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) in the short-term prognosis of patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) lacks clarity. We therefore aimed at evaluating the effect of a PERT team on short-term mortality among patients with acute PE.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients with acute symptomatic PE enrolled in a single-center registry between 2007 and 2022. We used propensity score matching to compare treatment effects for patients with similar predicted probabilities of receiving management by the PERT team. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 30 days following the diagnosis of PE. The secondary outcome was 30-day PE-related mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 2,902 eligible patients who had acute symptomatic PE, 223 (7.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7%-8.7%) were managed by the PERT team. Two hundred and seven patients who were treated by the PERT were matched with 207 patients who were not. Matched pairs did not show a statistically significant lower all-cause (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.63-1.89) or PE-related death (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.47-3.62) for PERT management compared with no PERT management through 30 days after diagnosis of PE.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that multidisciplinary care of patients with acute symptomatic PE by a PERT team is not associated with a significant reduction in short-term all-cause or PE-related mortality.

Risk Stratification and Management of Intermediate-Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular death and necessitates prompt, accurate risk assessment at initial diagnosis to guide treatment and reduce associated mortality. Intermediate-risk PE, defined as the presence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in the absence of hemodynamic compromise, carries a significant risk for adverse clinical outcomes and represents a unique diagnostic challenge. While small clinical trials have evaluated advanced treatment strategies beyond standard anticoagulation, such as thrombolytic or endovascular therapy, there remains continued debate on the optimal care for this patient population. Here, we review the most recent risk stratification models, highlighting differences between prediction scores and their limitations, and discuss the utility of serologic biomarkers and imaging modalities to detect right ventricular dysfunction. Additionally, we examine current treatment recommendations including anticoagulation strategies, use of thrombolytics at full and reduced doses, and utilization of invasive treatment options. Current knowledge gaps and ongoing studies are highlighted.

Clinical Significance of Right Heart Thrombus With and Without an Associated Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Right heart thrombus is a rare but serious form of venous thromboembolic disease that may be associated with pulmonary embolism. The prognosis of patients with right heart thrombus presenting without a concomitant pulmonary embolism remains ill-defined.

METHODS

We conducted a multi-center observational cohort study to compare patients presenting with right heart thrombus with and without a concurrent pulmonary embolism. The primary endpoint was 90-day all-cause mortality. Multivariable regression was utilized to assess primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 231 patients with right heart thrombus, 104 (45.0%) had a pulmonary embolism at admission. The median age of the cohort was 59.4 years (interquartile range 44.9-71.3). Pulmonary embolism in the setting of a right heart thrombus was associated with an increased adjusted hazard of 90-day mortality (hazard ratio 3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-8.97). Additionally, these patients had a higher adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.55; 95% CI, 1.15-5.94) and admission to the intensive care unit (OR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.23-4.94). Thrombus mobility (OR 2.99; 95% CI, 1.35-6.78) and larger thrombus sizes (OR 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) were associated with development of concurrent pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with right heart thrombus and pulmonary embolism had a more severe clinical presentation, required more advanced therapies, and had reduced survival compared with those without a concomitant pulmonary embolism. Important variables associated with development of concomitant pulmonary embolism include thrombus mobility and size. Right heart thrombus in the setting of acute pulmonary embolism represents a unique clinical entity that is associated with worse prognosis compared with right heart thrombus only.

Guideline Compliance and Indications for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement at a Quaternary Care Medical Center

PURPOSE

This study investigated physician compliance with indications for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement according to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the 2011 Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of 231 retrievable IVC filters placed between August 15, 2016, and December 28, 2017, at a large urban academic medical center. Guideline compliance to the 2012 ACCP and the 2011 SIR guidelines, and indications for IVC filter placements were assessed through an adjudication protocol. Filter retrieval and complication rates were also examined.

RESULTS

Compliance to guidelines was low (60.2% for ACCP; 74.0% for SIR), especially for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients (ICU 74.6% vs non-ICU 54.8%, p=0.007 for ACCP; ICU 82.5% vs non-ICU 70.8%, p=0.092 for SIR). After adjudication, 8.2% (19/231) of filters were considered non-indicated but reasonable, 17.7% (41/231) non-indicated and unreasonable, and 13.9% (32/231) SIR-indicated but not ACCP-indicated. The most common indication was venous thromboembolism with contraindication to anticoagulation. The most common reasons for non-compliance were distal deep venous thrombosis with contraindication to anticoagulation (19/60, 31.6%) and clot burden (19/60, 31.6%). One-year filter retrieval and 90-day complication rates were 32.0% (74/231) and 6.1% (14/231), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compliance to established guidelines was low. Reasons for non-compliance included limitations or discrepancies in guidelines, as well as non-evidence-based filter placements.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Despite increasing utilization of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, guideline compliance for IVC filter placement among providers is unclear. The results of this study indicate that physician compliance to established guidelines is poor, especially in non-intensive-care-unit patients. Noncompliance stems from non-evidence-based filter placement as well as differences and limitations in guidelines. Avoiding non-indicated IVC filter placement and consolidation of guidelines may significantly improve guideline compliance. The critical insights gained from this study can help promote judicious use of IVC filters and highlight the role of venous thromboembolism experts in navigating complex cases and nuances of guidelines.

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.

Treatment of high- and intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism by the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: Focus on catheter-directed therapies

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) were established to individualize the treatment of high-risk (HR) and intermediate-high-risk (IHR) pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, which pose a challenge in clinical practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected the data of all HR and IHR acute PE patients consulted by PERT CELZAT between September 2017 and October 2022. The patient population was divided into four different treatment methods: anticoagulation alone (AC), systemic thrombolysis (ST), surgical embolectomy (SE), and catheter-directed therapies (CDTx). Baseline clinical characteristics, risk stratification, PE severity parameters, and treatment outcomes were compared between the four groups.

RESULTS

Of the 110 patients with HR and IHR PE, 67 (61%) patients were treated with AC only, 11 (10%) with ST, 15 (14%) underwent SE, and 17 (15%) were treated with CTDx. The most common treatment option in the HR group was reperfusion therapy, used in 20/24 (83%) cases, including ST in 7 (29%) patients, SE in 5 (21%) patients, and CTDx in 8 (33%) patients. In contrast, IHR patients were treated with AC alone in 63/86 (73%) cases. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9/24 (37.5%) in the HR group and 4/86 (4.7%) in the IHR group.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of advanced procedures aimed at reperfusion was substantially higher in the HR group than in the IHR PE group. Despite the common use of advanced reperfusion techniques in the HR group, patient mortality remained high. There is a need further to optimize the treatment of patients with HR PE to improve outcomes.

Pulmonary embolism response team for hospitalized patients with submassive and massive pulmonary embolism: A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of mortality with presentation varying between few or no symptoms to sudden death. This makes timely and appropriate treatment extremely important. Multidisciplinary PE response teams (PERT) have emerged to improve the management of acute PE. This study aims to describe the experience of a large multihospital single-network institution with PERT.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for submassive and massive PE between 2012 and 2019 was conducted. The cohort was divided based on time of diagnosis and hospital into two groups: non-PERT included patients treated at hospitals that did not initiate PERT and patients diagnosed before the introduction of PERT (June 1, 2014); and the PERT group included those admitted after June 1, 2014, to a hospital with PERT. Patients with low-risk PE and those who had admissions in both time periods were excluded. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 30, 60, and 90 days. Secondary outcomes included causes of death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU length of stay (LOS), total hospital LOS, type of treatment, and specialty consultations.

RESULTS

We analyzed 5190 patients, with 819 (15.8%) being in the PERT group. Patients in the PERT group were more likely to receive extensive workup that included troponin-I (66.3% vs 42.3%; P < .001) and brain natriuretic peptide (50.4% vs 20.3%; P < .001). They also more often received catheter-directed interventions (12% vs 6.2%; P < .001) rather than anticoagulation monotherapy. Mortality outcomes were similar between both groups at all measured timepoints. Rates of ICU admission (65.2% vs 29.7%; P < .001), ICU LOS (median, 64.7 hours; interquartile range [IQR], 41.9-89.1 hours vs median, 38 hours; IQR, 22-66.4 hours; P < .001), and total hospital LOS (median, 5 days; IQR, 3-8 days vs median, 4 days; IQR, 2-6 days; P < .001) were all higher among the PERT group. Patients in the PERT group were more likely to receive vascular surgery consultation (5.3% vs 0.8%; P < .001) and the consultation occurred earlier in the admission when compared with the non-PERT group (median, 0 days; IQR, 0-1 days vs median, 1 day; IQR, 0-1; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented here showed that there was no difference in mortality after PERT implementation. These results suggest that the presence of PERT increases the number of patients receiving a full PE workup with cardiac biomarkers. PERT also leads to more specialty consultations and more advanced therapies such as catheter-directed interventions. Further research is needed to assess the effect of PERT on long-term survival of patients with massive and submassive PE.

Venous Thromboembolism Management in Pregnant Patients

Pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnancy accounts for 10% of maternal deaths in the United States. As maternal morbidity and mortality continue to increase, it is imperative for all specialties interfacing with pregnant patients to understand the current research and guidelines surrounding risk stratification, diagnosis, and treatments of PE in pregnancy. Given the complexity of high-risk pregnancy-associated PE (PA-PE), that is, which is associated with hemodynamic instability or collapse, and the rising popularity of new technologies to treat high-risk PA-PE in the nonpregnant population, this review aims to emphasize the differences in diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of the pregnant and nonpregnant PE patients. Furthermore, this review will cover treatment paradigms that include anticoagulation versus advanced therapies such as systemic thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and inferior vena cava disruption as well as the more novel therapies which fall under the umbrella term of catheter-based treatments. Finally, this review will include a case-based review of 2 patients with PA-PE requiring catheter-based therapies and their ultimate clinical outcomes.

Percutaneous Management of High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) leads to an abrupt increase in pulmonary vascular resistance and right ventricular afterload, and when significant enough, can result in hemodynamic instability. High-risk PE is a dire cardiovascular emergency and portends a poor prognosis. Traditional therapeutic options to rapidly reduce thrombus burden like systemic thrombolysis and surgical pulmonary endarterectomy have limitations, both with regards to appropriate candidates and efficacy, and have limited data demonstrating their benefit in high-risk PE. There are growing percutaneous treatment options for acute PE that include both localized thrombolysis and mechanical embolectomy. Data for such therapies with high-risk PE are currently limited. However, given the limitations, there is an opportunity to improve outcomes, with percutaneous treatments options offering new mechanisms for clot reduction with a possible improved safety profile compared with systemic thrombolysis. Additionally, mechanical circulatory support options allow for complementary treatment for patients with persistent instability, allowing for a bridge to more definitive treatment options. As more data develop, a shift toward a percutaneous approach with mechanical circulatory support may become a preferred option for the management of high-risk PE at tertiary care centers.

Acute Pulmonary Embolism Code and Rapid Response Teams are Necessary: A Review of Global and Mexico's Teams (MGH PERT)

Pulmonary embolism (PE) worldwide is an underdiagnosed disease; at the moment, there are no statistical data to make inferences regarding the thrombotic problem in Mexico. Although, in general, small emboli (subsegmental) are well tolerated in the pulmonary circulation, difficulties frequently occur for medium to large emboli that occlude more than 30% of the pulmonary circulation. In the United States, it is estimated that up to 100,000 PE-related deaths occur each year. A PE code consists of activating a group of specialists in PE for the consensual making of therapeutic decisions; it is beneficial for the clinical evolution of these patients and reduces their mortality; a PE response team (PERT) codes in reference hospitals to manage this disease. This report presents an updated summary of the PERT status globally and in Mexico, the explanation of why a PE code is necessary, and the effects of PERT teams in the detection (chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, chronic thromboembolic disease, and venous thromboembolism); therapeutic procedures (catheter-directed thrombolysis, systemic thrombolysis or surgical thrombectomy); selection of patients from low to high risk of PE; and future directions for PERT teams.

Effect of pulmonary embolism response team on advanced therapies administered: The University of Michigan experience

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) were employed at multiple institutions to bridge the gap between varied treatment options for acute PE and unclear evidence for optimal management. There is limited data regarding the impact of PERT on the use of advanced therapies and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-center cohort study comparing patients that presented to the ED with an acute PE before and after the creation of PERT in June 2017 at our institution. We assessed utilization of advanced therapies, LOS, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 817 patients (168 pre-PERT, 649 post-PERT) were evaluated in the ED with an acute PE between October 2016 and December 2019. Both groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and PESI score. There was a decrease in advanced therapy use (16 % vs. 7.5 %, p = 0.006) after PERT creation. Most notable decreases were in catheter-based therapies (8.5 % vs. 2.2 %, p = 0.008) and IVC filter placement (5.3 % vs. 3.2 %, p < 0.001). Median ICU LOS (2.5 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.55) and hospital LOS (3.1 vs. 3.0, p = 0.92) did not vary pre-PERT vs. post-PERT. In-hospital mortality (8.5 % vs. 5.0 %, p = 0.29) and 30-day all-cause mortality (1.2 % vs. 0.5 %, p = 0.28) were not different between the two groups as well.

CONCLUSION

At our institution, PERT was associated with a decrease in advanced therapies administered to acute PE patients without affecting mortality or LOS. Additional studies to assess impact of this multi-disciplinary care team model on interventional therapies and clinical outcomes for PE at a broader level are necessary.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Changing the paradigm in the care for acute pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged as a multidisciplinary, multispecialty team of experts in the care of highly complex symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a centralized unique activation process, providing rapid multimodality assessment and risk stratification, formulating the best individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, streamlining the care in challenging clinical case scenarios (e.g., intermediate-high risk and high-risk PE), and facilitating the implementation of the recommended therapeutic strategies on time. PERTs are currently changing how complex acute PE cases are approached. The structure, organization, and function of a given PERT may vary from hospital to hospital, depending on local expertise, specific resources, and infrastructure for a given academic hospital center. Current emerging data demonstrate the value of PERTs in improving time to PE diagnosis; shorter time to initiation of anticoagulation reducing hospital length of stay; increasing use of advanced therapies without an increase in bleeding; and in some reports, decreasing mortality. Importantly, PERTs are positively impacting outcomes by changing the paradigm of care for acute PE through global adoption by the health-care community.

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.

Trends in management and outcomes of pulmonary embolism with a multidisciplinary response team

Multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism (PE) response teams have garnered widespread adoption given the complexities of managing acute PE and provide a platform for assessment of trends in therapy and outcomes. We describe temporal trends in PE management and outcomes following the deployment of such a team. All consecutive patients managed by our multidisciplinary PE response team activated by the Emergency Department were included over a 5-year calendar period. We examined temporal trends in management and rates of a composite primary endpoint (all-cause-death, major bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and readmission) at 30 days and 6 months. We assessed 425 patients between 2015 and 2019. We observed an increase in PE acuity and use of systemic thrombolysis. The primary endpoint at 30 days decreased from 16.3% in 2015 to 7.1% in 2019 (adjusted rate ratio per period, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.47-0.84), driven by a decrease in the adjusted rate of major bleeding. Among 406 patients with complete follow-up, the adjusted rate ratio per year for the primary outcome at 6 months was 0.37 (95%CI, 0.19-0.71), driven by a decrease in all-cause mortality. We observed evidence of temporal changes in clinical presentation, therapeutic strategies, and outcomes for acute PE, in parallel to, but not necessarily because of, the implementation of a multidisciplinary response team. Over time, major bleeding, mortality and readmission rates decreased, despite an increase in PE risk category.

Risk stratification and treatment of pulmonary embolism with intermediate-risk of mortality

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Intermediate-risk pulmonary embolisms (PE) represent a heterogeneous group at the high end of hemodynamically stable patients, characterized by a higher mortality rate. This challenging population gathers many unsolved question regarding its therapeutic management. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated overview of the literature regarding further risk stratification and treatment options in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

If anticoagulation represents the undisputed first line of treatment, some patients especially in the intermediate-high risk subgroup may necessitate or could benefit from therapeutic escalation with reperfusion therapies. This includes systemic thrombolysis (ST) or catheter-directed therapies (CDT). ST, despite its high efficacy, is not recommended in this population because of prohibitive bleeding complications. Therefore, reduced-dose ST appears to be a promising option and is actually under evaluation. CDT are percutaneous reperfusion techniques developed to acutely decrease pulmonary vascular obstruction with lower-dose or no thrombolytic agents and, thus, potentially improved safety compared to ST.

SUMMARY

Great progress has been made in the recent years providing a wide range of therapeutic options. Optimal selection of patients who could benefit from these treatments is the key and is based on clinical, biological and radiological parameters evaluating right ventricle function and allowing accurate risk stratification. Pulmonary Embolism Response Team represents an efficient modality for therapeutic management especially in the intermediate-high risk subgroup.

The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: Rationale, Operation, and Outcomes

The pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is an institutionally based multidisciplinary team that is able to rapidly assess and provide treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Intrinsic to the team's structure is a formal mechanism to execute a full range of medical, endovascular, and surgical therapies. In addition, the PERT provides appropriate multidisciplinary follow-up of patients. In the 10 years since the PERT was first introduced, it has gained acceptance in many centers in the United States and around the world. These PERTs have joined together to form an international association, called the PERT Consortium. The mission of this consortium is to advance the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with PE. There is considerable evidence that the PERT model improves delivery and standardization of care of PE patients, particularly those patients with massive and submassive PE. However, it is not yet clear whether PERTs improve clinical outcomes. A large prospective database is currently being compiled by the PERT Consortium. Analysis of this database will likely further delineate the role of PERTs in the management of intermediate-to-high risk PE patients and, importantly, help determine in which PE patients PERT may improve clinical outcomes.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Consulted by a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: 5-Year Experience

(1) Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most frequent acute cardiovascular condition worldwide. PE response teams (PERTs) have been created to facilitate treatment implementation in PE patients. Here, we report on the 5-year experience of PERT operating in Warsaw, Poland, with regard to the characteristics and outcomes of the consulted patients. (2) Methods: Patients diagnosed with PE between September 2017 and December 2021 were included in the study. Clinical and treatment data were obtained from medical records. Patient outcomes were assessed in-hospital, at a 1- and 12-month follow-up. (3) Results: There were 235 PERT activations. The risk of early mortality was low in 51 patients (21.8%), intermediate–low in 83 (35.3%), intermediate–high in 80 (34.0%) and high in 21 (8.9%) patients. Anticoagulation alone was the most frequently administered treatment in all patient subgroups (altogether 84.7%). Systemic thrombolysis (47.6%) and interventional therapy (52%) were the prevailing treatment options in high-risk patients. The in-hospital mortality was 6.4%. The adverse events during 1-year follow-up included five deaths, two recurrent VTE and two minor bleeding events. (4) Conclusions: Our initial 5-year experience showed that the activity of the local PERT facilitated patient-tailored decision making and the access to advanced therapies, with subsequent low overall mortality and treatment complication rates, confirming the benefits of PERT implementation.

Comparison of Pulmonary Emboli Management Between Pulmonary Emboli Response Team and the Conventional Method: The First Study From Iran

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) for intermediate-high risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients.

METHODS

This single-blind clinical trial was performed in 2019-2021, evaluating patients with intermediate-high risk and high risk of PE. Patients in the intervention group were managed by the PERT team, and treatment plans were implemented as soon as possible. Patients in the other group received conventional PE treatments based on the hospital protocols. We compared the primary outcome of short-term mortality between the 2 groups and secondary outcomes, including right ventricle indices, hospital length-of-stay, time to decision, 30-day and in-hospital bleeding.

RESULTS

Data of 74 patients were analyzed. We found no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding short-term mortality (P = 0.642), bleeding, and other complications. However, the length-of-stay and time to decision were significantly lower in patients treated by the PERT team (P < 0.001 for both). Further evaluations revealed that patients in the intervention group had a more significant reduction in the right ventricle size and systolic pulmonary pressure compared with the control group (P = 0.015, P = 0.039, respectively). In addition, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and fractional area change increased more in the intervention group (P = 0.023, P = 0.016, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The PERT team led to significantly less time to make decisions, and it was able to select patients for advanced treatments more appropriately. Due to these facts, patients treated by PERT had significantly lower hospitalization duration and better right ventricle indices compared to controls.

Clinical experiences of high-risk pulmonary thromboembolism receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in single institution

Background

The main cause of death in pulmonary embolism (PE) is right-heart failure due to acute pressure overload. In this sense, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) might be useful in maintaining hemodynamic stability and improving organ perfusion. Some previous studies have reported ECMO as a bridge to reperfusion therapy of PE. However, little is known about the patients that benefit from ECMO.

Methods

Patients who underwent ECMO due to pulmonary thromboembolism at a single university-affiliated hospital between January 2010 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

During the study period, nine patients received ECMO in high-risk PE. The median age of the patients was 60 years (range, 22–76 years), and six (66.7%) were male. All nine patients had cardiac arrests, of which three occurred outside the hospital. All the patients received mechanical support with veno-arterial ECMO, and the median ECMO duration was 1.1 days (range, 0.2–14.0 days). ECMO with anticoagulation alone was performed in six (66.7%), and ECMO with reperfusion therapy was done in three (33.3%). The 30-day mortality rate was 77.8%. The median time taken from the first cardiac arrest to initiation of ECMO was 31 minutes (range, 30–32 minutes) in survivors (n=2) and 65 minutes (range, 33–482 minutes) in non-survivors (n=7).

Conclusion

High-risk PE with cardiac arrest has a high mortality rate despite aggressive management with ECMO and reperfusion therapy. Early decision to start ECMO and its rapid initiation might help save those with cardiac arrest in high-risk PE.

Interhospital Transfer for the Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

There are increasing treatment options for the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), though many are only available at tertiary care centers. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism with high-risk features are often transferred for consideration of such therapies. There are limited data describing outcomes in patients transferred with acute pulmonary embolism.

METHODS

We evaluated patients with acute pulmonary embolism at our tertiary care center from August 2012 through August 2018 and compared clinical characteristics, pulmonary embolism features, management, and outcomes in those transferred for acute pulmonary embolism to those that were not transferred.

RESULTS

Of 2050 patients with pulmonary embolism included in the study, 432 (21.1%) were transferred from an outside hospital with a known diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Patients transferred had a lower rate of malignancy (22.2% vs 33.3%; P < .001) and median Charlson comorbidity index (3 vs 4; P < .001). A higher percentage of patients transferred were classified as intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism (62.5% vs 43.0%; P <.001) and more frequently received advanced therapy beyond anticoagulation alone (12.5% vs 3.2%, P < .001). Overall survival to discharge was similar between groups, though definite pulmonary embolism-related mortality was higher in the transferred group (38.5% vs 9.4%, P = .004).

CONCLUSION

More than 1 in 5 patients treated for acute pulmonary embolism at a tertiary care center were transferred from an outside facility. Transferred patients had higher risk pulmonary embolism features, more often received advanced therapy, and had higher definite pulmonary embolism-related mortality. There are opportunities to further optimize outcomes of patients transferred for management of acute pulmonary embolism.

The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: Why and How?

Treatment of patients with intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is a controversial area. Many therapeutic options exist, and deciding on appropriate treatment can be difficult. In addition, multiple specialties are often involved in the care of PE patients. To better organize the response to serious PE patients, several hospitals and academic centers throughout the world have created pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs). The goal of a PERT is to have a single multidisciplinary team of experts in thromboembolic disease, who can respond rapidly to patients with acute PE, and offer consultation and implementation of the full spectrum of therapeutic options. PERT teams were modeled after rapid response teams and are meant to generate a prompt, patient-specific plan for patients with PE without having to consult multiple individual specialists. Data are emerging demonstrating the value of PERTs in reducing hospital length of stay and, possibly, patient outcomes.