Diagnostic approach to deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in the critical care setting

Effect of Beta-blockers on Tachycardia in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism

Hypothesis Beta-blockers (BBs) lower the heart rate, which may mask the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) since one of the main clinical diagnoses of PE is tachycardia. The endpoint of our retrospective study is to determine if the pre-existing use of (BB) significantly affects the utility of these scoring criteria in diagnosing PE. Introduction Diagnosing PE is a challenge because of the non-specificity of its symptoms and signs. The initial step is to assess the patient's likelihood of having a PE. This involves using a scoring system to stratify patients into different levels of risk of having PE (for example, as 'low,' 'moderate,' or 'high' risk). Some of the commonly used criteria are Wells' Score, Geneva Score, and Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) Rule (Charlotte Rule). Methodology This retrospective study was conducted at St. Francis Medical Center. Subjects were taken from a patient population with a new diagnosis of PE (between 2010 and 2017) on the basis of computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the chest. Patients with sepsis or septic shock, heart block, atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation, pacemaker placement, or taking more than one AV nodal blocker were excluded from the study. Subjects were categorized on the basis of beta-blocker consumption. Result Out of a total of 170 cases, 71 patients were taking beta-blockers and 99 patients were not taking beta-blockers. Among the participants taking BBs, 30.4% had a heart rate <60 and 55.8% had a heart rate between 60 and 100. Conclusion BBs significantly obviate tachycardia in patients with PE. It falsely decreases the Wells' Score and the Geneva Score and results in the inappropriate fulfilling of PERC criteria.

Submassive pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common diagnosis in critical care. Depending on the severity of clot burden, the clinical picture ranges from nearly asymptomatic to cardiovascular collapse. The signs and symptoms of PE are nonspecific. The clinician must have a high index of suspicion to make the diagnosis. PE is risk stratified into 3 categories: low-risk, submassive, and massive. Submassive PE remains the most challenging with regard to initial and long-term management. Little consensus exists as to the appropriate tests for risk stratification and therapy. This article reviews the current literature and a suggested approach to these patients.

Hematologic Complications

Critically ill patients are at high risk of developing various hematologic complications that may be present on admission or occur during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Often times the etiology of specific hematologic abnormalities is unclear and the diagnosis may be challenging due to the complexity of critically ill patients. This chapter will focus on diagnosis and management of the most commonly encountered hematologic problems in the critically ill such as anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, coagulopathy and thrombotic complications, with specific focus on diagnosis and management of these conditions.

Venous thromboembolism management: where do novel anticoagulants fit?

OBJECTIVE

To review novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) trials in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the possible use of risk-stratification tools to guide their use in practice.

SCOPE

MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant journal articles published from January 1982 to February 2013. Additional references were obtained from articles extracted during the database search.

FINDINGS

NOACs have been developed to optimize VTE management and overcome the limitations of heparin and vitamin K antagonists (VKA). The AMPLIFY and EINSTEIN trials of apixaban and rivaroxaban, respectively, investigated single-drug management of VTE, whereas the edoxaban Hokusai-VTE trial and dabigatran RE-COVER and RE-COVER II trials investigated the use of NOACs with a heparin lead-in. The AMPLIFY and Hokusai-VTE trials are ongoing but the EINSTEIN and RE-COVER trials have demonstrated that rivaroxaban and dabigatran, respectively, are non-inferior to parenteral anticoagulants and warfarin in the management of VTE. Differences in study design complicate the application of study results to clinical practice. There are multiple validated DVT protocols that effectively and safely treat patients in outpatient settings. The pulmonary embolism (PE) severity index (PESI), simplified PESI (sPESI), and other prognostic tools have been used to risk stratify patients with PE by estimating mortality risk to guide outpatient eligibility.

CONCLUSIONS

NOACs provide physicians with new therapeutic options in the management of VTE. While heparin and VKAs compose the current standard treatment for VTE, their use will likely disappear as physicians grow comfortable with the adoption of NOACs. As studies have not clearly defined the efficacy of these agents in certain patient populations, further data in special patient populations and risk stratification through the use of VTE severity scores could potentially be adapted to guide anticoagulant management and outpatient treatment eligibility.