Diversity in the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Model: An Organizational Survey of the National PERT Consortium Members

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.

Severe Traumatic Brain Injury and Pulmonary Embolism: Risks, Prevention, Diagnosis and Management

Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is a silent epidemic, causing approximately 300,000 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions annually, with a 30% mortality rate. Despite worldwide efforts to optimize the management of patients and improve outcomes, the level of evidence for the treatment of these patients remains low. The concomitant occurrence of thromboembolic events, particularly pulmonary embolism (PE), remains a challenge for intensivists due to the risks of anticoagulation to the injured brain. We performed a literature review on sTBI and concomitant PE to identify and report the most recent advances on this topic. We searched PubMed and Scopus for papers published in the last five years that included the terms "pulmonary embolism" and "traumatic brain injury" in their title or abstract. Exclusion criteria were papers referring to children, non-sTBI populations, and post-acute care. Our search revealed 75 papers, of which 38 are included in this review. The main topics covered include the prevalence of and risk factors for pulmonary embolism, the challenges of timely diagnosis in the ICU, the timing of pharmacological prophylaxis, and the treatment of diagnosed PE.

Vascular Surgeon Involvement in Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams: Barriers, Challenges, Concerns and the Imperative for Integration

BACKGROUND

The effective management of pulmonary embolism (PE) necessitates coordinated care among physicians from diverse specialties within a time-sensitive framework. Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) have been developed as a strategic approach to optimize and expedite treatment by integrating and coordinating different specialties. The current survey audit aimed to understand the level of interest among vascular surgeons and the logistical considerations surrounding their participation within the PERT.

METHODS

A deidentified Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) survey was disseminated to vascular surgeons, with collected data submitted to the Vascular Surgery Collaborative (VASC) database.

RESULTS

A total of 139 vascular surgeons with an average of 10.6 years of practice experience responded to the VASC PERT audit. The majority (70.5%) practice in academic settings and only 24.5% currently perform PE interventions in their practice. While nearly half of respondents (52.5%) reported the existence of PERT in their institutions, only a fraction (23.3%) was actively involved in the PERT. Notably, a significant proportion in our cohort (38.1%) expressed dissatisfaction with the representation of vascular surgeons in multidisciplinary teams managing venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and PE. Vascular surgery (VS) representation in PERT was only 34.2%, with pulmonology (pulm) (60.3%), interventional radiology (IR) (57.5%), interventional cardiology (IC) (57.5%), and critical care (CC) (50.7%) being the most represented specialties. The primary barriers to VS participation in PERT were competing interests from other specialties and logistical scheduling challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

The audit shows a global deficit in the integration of VS expertize within PERT frameworks. Primary barriers include exclusion due to competing interests from other specialties and challenges in the logistical coordination of PERT calls.

Integration of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation into the Management of High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: An Overview of Current Evidence

High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) refers to a large embolic burden causing right ventricular failure and hemodynamic instability. It accounts for approximately 5% of all cases of PE but contributes significantly to overall PE mortality. Systemic thrombolysis is the first-line revascularization therapy in high-risk PE. Surgical embolectomy or catheter-directed therapy is recommended in patients with an absolute contraindication to systemic thrombolysis. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides respiratory and hemodynamic support for the most critically ill PE patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. The complex management of these individuals requires urgent yet coordinated multidisciplinary care. In light of existing evidence regarding the utility of ECMO in the management of high-risk PE patients, a number of possible indications for ECMO utilization have been suggested in the literature. Specifically, in patients with refractory cardiac arrest, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or refractory shock, including in cases of failed thrombolysis, venoarterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) should be considered, either as a bridge to percutaneous or surgical embolectomy or as a bridge to recovery after surgical embolectomy. We review here the current evidence on the use of ECMO as part of the management strategy for the highest-risk presentations of PE and summarize the latest data in this indication.

Considerations for instituting pediatric pulmonary embolism response teams: A tool kit

The incidence of pediatric pulmonary embolism (PE) has increased by 200 % in the last decade, but at a single center, it is still infrequent. Given the unique epidemiologic features of pediatric PE, diagnosis is often delayed, and the management is empiric, based on individual physician experience or preference. Thus, there is a strong need for center-specific uniform management of pediatric PE patients. In adults, the development of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) or PE critical care pathways has shortened the time to diagnosis and the initiation of definitive management. Evidence to support an improvement in PE outcomes after the development of PERTs does not exist in children. Nonetheless, we have summarized the practical practice guidelines that physicians and institutions can adopt to establish their institutional PERTs or critical pathways. We also provide strategies for resource-challenged institutions for partnering with centers with expertise in the management of pediatric PE.

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Anesthetic management in patients having catheter-based thrombectomy for acute pulmonary embolism: A narrative review

Pulmonary embolism is the third leading cause of cardiovascular death. Novel percutaneous catheter-based thrombectomy techniques are rapidly becoming popular in high-risk pulmonary embolism - especially in the presence of contraindications to thrombolysis. The interventional nature of these procedures and the risk of sudden cardiorespiratory compromise requires the presence of an anesthesiologist. Facilitating catheter-based thrombectomy can be challenging since qualifying patients are often critically ill. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide guidance to anesthesiologists for the assessment and management of patients having catheter-based thrombectomy for acute pulmonary embolism. First, available techniques for catheter-based thrombectomy are reviewed. Then, we discuss definitions and application of common risk stratification tools for pulmonary embolism, and how to assess patients prior to the procedure. An adjudication of risks and benefits of anesthetic strategies for catheter-based thrombectomy follows. Specifically, we give guidance and rationale for use monitored anesthesia care and general anesthesia for these procedures. For both, we review strategies for assessing and mitigating hemodynamic perturbations and right ventricular dysfunction, ranging from basic monitoring to advanced inodilator therapy. Finally, considerations for management of right ventricular failure with mechanical circulatory support are discussed.

Implementing a Pediatric Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Model: An Institutional Experience

Pulmonary embolism is increasing in prevalence among pediatric patients; although still rare, it can create a significant risk for morbidity and death within the pediatric patient population. Pulmonary embolism presents in various ways depending on the patient, the size of the embolism, and the comorbidities. Treatment decisions are often driven by the severity of the presentation and hemodynamic effects; severe presentations require more invasive and aggressive treatment. We describe the development and implementation of a pediatric pulmonary embolism response team designed to facilitate rapid, multidisciplinary, data-driven treatment decisions and management.

Effect of a pulmonary embolism response team on the management and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the effects of a multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism (PE) response team (PERT) on the management and outcomes of patients with acute PE.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients presenting to our institution with a diagnosis of PE from July 2020 to April 2022. The primary outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, major bleeding events defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, and use of catheter-directed interventions (CDIs). The secondary outcome measures included 30-day and 12-month mortality, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, vasopressor requirement, and cardiac arrest. Continuous variables were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and categorical variables using the χ2 or Fisher exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients with acute PE were identified, of whom 79 (28%), 173 (62%), and 27 (10%) were considered to have low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk, respectively. The PERT was activated for 133 patients (47.7%). Saddle and main pulmonary artery embolisms (P < .001), right ventricular strain (P= .001), right ventricular dysfunction (P < .001), coexisting deep vein thrombosis (P < .001), and dyspnea as a presenting symptom (P = .008) were significantly associated with PERT activation. Patients evaluated by the PERT were more likely to undergo CDI (49% vs 27%; P < .001) across all risk groups and less likely to have an inferior vena cava filter placed (1% vs 5%; P = .04). PERT consultation showed numerical, but nonstatistically significant, trends toward reduced in-hospital (2% vs 5%; P = .2) and 30-day (2% vs 8%; P = .06) mortality but similar rates of 12-month mortality (7% vs 8%; P = .7). PERT activation was also associated with a trend toward reduced rates of major bleeding (2% vs 7%), cardiac arrest (2% vs 7%), and vasopressor requirement (9% vs 18%). PERT consultations decreased the median number of ICU days by one half; however, we did not observe any differences in the total hospital length of stay between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, PERT consultations were associated with significantly higher usage of CDIs and improved clinical outcomes, including reduced mortality and a lower rate of major bleeding events. PERT consultations were also associated with fewer ICU days, suggesting a possible economic benefit for implementing PERTs, although further research is needed to confirm that conclusion.

Mortality across treatment strategies in intermediate-to-high risk pulmonary embolism in the modern era: A meta-analysis of observational studies and RCTs

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents one of the leading causes of death worldwide and mainly treated with medical management, although the utility of more invasive approaches has emerged more recently. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the 30-day mortality of intermediate-to-high risk PE across different treatment strategies.

METHODS

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane databases. All studies reporting 30-day mortality rates in intermediate-to-high-risk PE were included. Meta-regression analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed on the primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, and secondary endpoints (RV/LV ratio, mPAP, and long-term mortality, any bleeding events).

RESULTS

Of the 2390 studies published between 2000 and 2022, 76 studies (74 observational and 2 RCTs for a total of 1,194,285 patients in the medical cohort and 3007 in the interventional cohort) were included. The median age was 71.4 (IQR 62.8-77.3) years, 53.6% were women. 30-day mortality in the patients treated with medical management was 9.1% (6.6-12.6). In the interventional cohort, 30-day mortality was 2.1% (1.5-3.1) while the pre- vs post-procedure change in mean difference was -6.1 mmHg (-11.2 to -1.1) for mPAP and - 0.41 (-0.51 to - 0.31) for RV/LV ratio. The overall bleeding rate in the interventional cohort was 4.9% (CI 2.6-8.9), without differences between the two strategies (RR 1.26 CI 0.89-1.78).

CONCLUSION

Intermediate-high-risk mortality in pulmonary embolisms treated with medical management remains high in the modern era. Despite the absence of comparative studies, an interventional approach may have a lower 30-day mortality rate and a good safety profile.

Pulmonary Embolism Center of Excellence: Putting It All Together

Center of excellence (COE) designations are generally used to identify programs with expertise in a specific area of medicine. Meeting criteria for a COE may result in advantages including improved clinical outcomes, marketing advantages, and improved financial performance. However, criteria for COE designations are highly variable, and they are granted by a wide variety of entities. The diagnosis and treatment of both acute pulmonary emboli and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension are disciplines that require multidisciplinary expertise, highly coordinated care, specialized technology and advanced skillsets gained through high patient volumes.

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.

Using a Fibrinolysis Delivery Catheter in Pulmonary Embolism Treatment for Measurement of Pulmonary Artery Hemodynamics

Background: Ultrasound-facilitated and catheter-directed low-dose fibrinolysis (EKOS) has shown favorable hemodynamic and safety outcomes in intermediate- to high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) cases. Objectives: This prospective single-arm monocentric study assessed the effects of using a delivery catheter for fibrinolysis as a novel approach for acute intermediate- to high-risk patients on pulmonary artery hemodynamics PE. Methods: Forty-five patients (41 intermediate−high and 4 high risk) with computer tomography (CT)-confirmed PE underwent EKOS therapy. By protocol, a total of 6 mg of tissue-plasminogen activator (t-PA) was administered over 6 h in the pulmonary artery (unilateral 6 mg or bilateral 12 mg). Unfractionated heparin was provided periprocedurally. The primary safety outcome was death, as well as major and minor bleeding within 48 of procedure initiation and at 90 days. The primary effectiveness outcomes were: 1. to assess the difference in pulmonary artery pressure from baseline to 6 h post-treatment as a primary precise surrogate marker, and 2. to determine the echocardiographic RV/LV ratio from baseline to 48 h and at 90 days post-delivery. Results: Pulmonary artery pressure decreased by 15/6/10 mmHg (p < 0.001). The mean RV/LV ratio decreased from 1.2 ± 0.85 at baseline to 0.85 ± 0.12 at 48 and to 0.76 ± 0.13 at 90 days (p < 0.001). Five patients (11%) died within 90 days of therapy. Conclusions and Highlights: Pulmonary artery hemodynamics were assessed using a delivery catheter for fibrinolysis, which is reproducible for identifying PE at risk of adverse outcomes. The results matched the right heart catheter results in EKOS and Heparin arm of Ultima trial, thereby confirming the validity of this potential diagnostic tool to assess therapy effectiveness and thereby reduce additional procedure-related complications, hospital residency, and economics. These results stress the importance of having an interdisciplinary team involved in the management of PE to evaluate the quality of life of these patients and this protocol shortens ICU admission to 6 h.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams: Theory, Implementation, and Unanswered Questions

Pulmonary embolism (PE) continues to represent a significant health care burden and its incidence is steadily increasing worldwide. Constantly evolving therapeutic options and the rarity of randomized controlled trial data to drive clinical guidelines impose challenges on physicians caring for patients with PE. Recently, PE response teams have been developed and recommended to help address these issues by facilitating a consensus among local experts while advocating the management of acute PE according to each individual patient profile. In this review, we focus on the clinical challenges supporting the need for a PE response team, report the current evidence for their implementation, assess their impact on PE management and outcomes, and address unanswered questions and future directions.

Percutaneous treatment options for acute pulmonary embolism: a clinical consensus statement by the ESC Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

There is a growing clinical and scientific interest in catheter-directed therapy (CDT) of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Currently, CDT should be considered for patients with high-risk PE, in whom thrombolysis is contraindicated or has failed. Also, CDT is a treatment option for initially stable patients in whom anticoagulant treatment fails, i.e., those who experience haemodynamic deterioration despite adequately dosed anticoagulation. However, the definition of treatment failure (primary reperfusion therapy or anticoagulation alone) remains an important area of uncertainty. Moreover, several techniques for CDT are available without evidence supporting one over the other, and variation in practice with regard to periprocedural anticoagulation is considerable. The aim of this position paper is to describe the currently available CDT approaches in PE patients and to standardise patient selection, the timing and technique of the procedure itself as well as anticoagulation regimens during CDT. We discuss several clinical scenarios of the clinical evaluation of the "efficacy" of thrombolysis and anticoagulation, including treatment failure with haemodynamic deterioration and treatment failure based on a lack of improvement. This clinical consensus statement serves as a practical guide for CDT, complementary to the formal guidelines.

Contemporary Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Evolution of Catheter-based Therapy

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) affects more than 100 000 people in the United States annually and is the third leading cardiovascular cause of death. The standard management for PE is systemic anticoagulation therapy. However, a subset of patients experience hemodynamic decompensation, despite conservative measures. Traditionally, these patients have been treated with systemic administration of thrombolytic agents or open cardiac surgery, although attempts at endovascular treatment have a long history that dates back to the 1960s. The technology for catheter-based therapy for acute PE is rapidly evolving, with multiple devices approved over the past decade. Currently available devices fall into two broad categories of treatment methods: catheter-directed thrombolysis and percutaneous suction thrombectomy. Catheter-directed thrombolysis is the infusion of thrombolytic agents directly into the occluded pulmonary arteries to increase local delivery and decrease the total dose. Suction thrombectomy involves the use of small- or large-bore catheters to mechanically aspirate a clot from the pulmonary arteries without the need for a thrombolytic agent. A thorough understanding of the various risk stratification schemes and the available evidence for each device is critical for optimal treatment of this complex entity. Multiple ongoing studies will improve our understanding of the role of catheter-based therapy for acute PE in the next 5-10 years. A multidisciplinary approach through PE response teams has become the management standard at most institutions. An invited commentary by Bulman and Weinstein is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2022.

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.

Massive Embolism: Knife versus PCI

Pulmonary embolism is the third most common cardiovascular syndrome with an estimated up to 25% of patients presenting with sudden death. For those who survive, a mainstay of management for patients with hemodynamic stability is anticoagulation; however, recommendations and options are rapidly changing for patients with submassive or massive pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability. Catheter-based and surgical approaches offer efficacious management options for unstable patients or patients with contraindications to anticoagulation; however, both approaches have inherent benefits and risk. This article seeks to offer a brief review on the recommendations and options for management of pulmonary embolism from both surgical and catheter-based perspectives.

Current interventional therapies in acute pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The management of PE is currently evolving given the development of new technologies and team-based approaches. This document will focus on risk stratification of PEs, review of the current interventional therapies, the role of clinical endpoints to assess the effectiveness of different interventional therapies, and the role for mechanical circulatory support in the complex management of this disease.

Thromboembolic Complications of SARS-CoV-2 and Metabolic Derangements: Suggestions from Clinical Practice Evidence to Causative Agents

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus (CoV)-2 is a recently identified positive sense single-strand RNA (ssRNA) β-coronavirus. The viral spike proteins infect human hosts by binding to the cellular receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The infection causes a systemic illness involving cell metabolism. This widespread involvement is implicated in the pathophysiology of the illness which ranges from mild to severe, requiring multi organ support, ranging from oxygen supplementation to full cardiovascular and respiratory support. Patients with multiple co-existing comorbidities are also at a higher risk. The aim of this review is to explore the exact mechanisms by which COVID-19 affects patients systemically with a primary focus on the bleeding and thrombotic complications linked with the disease. Issues surrounding the thrombotic complications following administration of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Astra-Zeneca-Oxford) vaccine have also been illustrated. Risk stratification and treatment options in these patients should be tailored according to clinical severity with input from a multidisciplinary team.

Advanced therapies for pulmonary embolism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Treatment options for managing patients with acute pulmonary embolism are rapidly evolving. In this review, we discuss the supporting evidence and implementation strategies for these advanced therapeutic modalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review the recent data supporting systemic and catheter directed thrombolytic therapies, mechanical embolectomy, use of extracorporeal membrane oxygen support, and pulmonary embolism response teams in managing patients with acute pulmonary embolism. We discuss the major professional society recommendations regarding their implementation.

SUMMARY

A review of advanced therapies for pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary Embolism Complicated by Acute Limb Ischemia Managed by Surgical Pulmonary Embolectomy

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a manifestation of venous thromboembolic disease with potential serious and life-threatening complications. Management options for acute PE have drastically improved over the last 15 years with the introduction of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams throughout the world. We present the case of an 18-year-old woman diagnosed with acute PE complicated by near-complete occlusion of her left common femoral artery from a paradoxical embolus in the setting of patent foramen ovale (PFO), managed with surgical pulmonary embolectomy and surgical PFO repair.

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Disproportionate Thrombotic Tendency and Management Recommendations

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS COV-2 virus. Patients with COVID-19 are susceptible to thrombosis due to excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and circulatory stasis, resulting in an increased risk of death due to associated coagulopathies. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for pre-existing thrombotic diseases can develop COVID-19, which can further complicate dose adjustment, choice and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic treatment. This review summarizes the laboratory findings, the prohemostatic state, incidence of thromboembolic events and some potential therapeutic interventions of COVID-19 associated coagulopathy. We explore the roles of biomarkers of thrombosis and inflammation according to the severity of COVID-19. While therapeutic anticoagulation has been used empirically in some patients with severe COVID-19 but without thrombosis, it may be preferable to provide supportive care based on evidence-based randomized clinical trials. The likely lifting of travel restrictions will accelerate the spread of COVID-19, increasing morbidity and mortality across nations. Many individuals will continue to receive anticoagulation therapy regardless of their location, requiring on-going treatment with low-molecular weight heparin, vitamin K antagonist or direct-acting anticoagulants.

Coronavirus Disease 2019-Associated Thrombosis and Coagulopathy: Review of the Pathophysiological Characteristics and Implications for Antithrombotic Management

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, which has posed a significant threat to global health. Although the infection is frequently asymptomatic or associated with mild symptoms, in a small proportion of patients it can produce an intense inflammatory and prothrombotic state that can lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiple organ failure, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, highly expressed in the respiratory system, has been identified as a functional receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. Notably, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is also expressed in the cardiovascular system, and there are multiple cardiovascular implications of COVID-19. Cardiovascular risk factors and cardiovascular disease have been associated with severe manifestations and poor prognosis in patients with COVID-19. More important, patients with COVID-19 may have thrombotic and coagulation abnormalities, promoting a hypercoagulable state and resulting in an increased rate of thrombotic and thromboembolic events. This review will describe the pathophysiological characteristics of the cardiovascular involvement following infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2, with a focus on thrombotic and thromboembolic manifestations and implications for antithrombotic management.

Current Endovascular Treatment Options in Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity across the globe. Over the last few decades, there have been major therapeutic advances in acute PE management, including catheter-based therapy. However, the effectiveness of catheter-based therapy in acute PE is not supported by Level I evidence, making the use of this promising treatment rather controversial and ambiguous. In this paper, we discuss the risk stratification of acute PE and review the medical and endovascular treatment options. We also summarize and review the data supporting the use of endovascular treatment options in acute PE and describe the potential role of the PE response team.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Position Paper From the National PERT Consortium

The coexistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pulmonary embolism (PE), two life-threatening illnesses, in the same patient presents a unique challenge. Guidelines have delineated how best to diagnose and manage patients with PE. However, the unique aspects of COVID-19 confound both the diagnosis and treatment of PE, and therefore require modification of established algorithms. Important considerations include adjustment of diagnostic modalities, incorporation of the prothrombotic contribution of COVID-19, management of two critical cardiorespiratory illnesses in the same patient, and protecting patients and health-care workers while providing optimal care. The benefits of a team-based approach for decision-making and coordination of care, such as that offered by pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs), have become more evident in this crisis. The importance of careful follow-up care also is underscored for patients with these two diseases with long-term effects. This position paper from the PERT Consortium specifically addresses issues related to the diagnosis and management of PE in patients with COVID-19.

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

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of acute pulmonary embolism requires expertise offered by multiple subspecialties. As such, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have increased in prevalence, but the institutional consequences of a PERT are unclear.

METHODS

We compared all patients that presented to our institution with an acute pulmonary embolism in the 3 years prior to and 3 years after the formation of our PERT. The primary outcome was in-hospital pulmonary embolism-related mortality before and after the formation of the PERT. Sub-analyses were performed among patients with elevated-risk pulmonary embolism.

RESULTS

Between August 2012 and August 2018, 2042 patients were hospitalized at our institution with acute pulmonary embolism, 884 (41.3%) pre-PERT implementation and 1158 (56.7%) post-PERT implementation, of which 165 (14.2%) were evaluated by the PERT. There was no difference in pulmonary embolism-related mortality between the two time periods (2.6% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.9% post-PERT implementation, P = .89). There was increased risk stratification assessment by measurement of cardiac biomarkers and echocardiograms post-PERT implementation. Overall utilization of advanced therapy was similar between groups (5.4% pre-PERT implementation vs 5.4% post-PERT implementation, P = 1.0), with decreased use of systemic thrombolysis (3.8% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.1% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.02) and increased catheter-directed therapy (1.3% pre-PERT implementation vs 3.3% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.05) post-PERT implementation. Inferior vena cava filter use decreased after PERT implementation (10.7% pre-PERT implementation vs 6.9% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.002). Findings were similar when analyzing elevated-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Pulmonary embolism response teams may increase risk stratification assessment and alter application of advanced therapies, but a mortality benefit was not identified.

Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Purpose of the Review

Over 100,000 cardiovascular-related deaths annually are caused by acute pulmonary embolism (PE). While anticoagulation has historically been the foundation for treatment of PE, this review highlights the recent rapid expansion in the interventional strategies for this condition.

Recent Findings

At the time of diagnosis, appropriate risk stratification helps to accurately identify patients who may be candidates for advanced therapeutic interventions. While systemic thrombolytics (ST) is the mostly commonly utilized intervention for high-risk PE, the risk profile of ST for intermediate-risk PE limits its use. Assessment of an individualized patient risk profile, often via a multidisciplinary pulmonary response team (PERT) model, there are various interventional strategies to consider for PE management. Novel therapeutic options include catheter-directed thrombolysis, catheter-based embolectomy, or mechanical circulatory support for certain high-risk PE patients. Current data has established safety and efficacy for catheter-based treatment of PE based on surrogate outcome measures. However, there is limited long-term data or prospective comparisons between treatment modalities and ST. While PE diagnosis has improved with modern cross-sectional imaging, there is interest in improved diagnostic models for PE that incorporate artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques.

Summary

In patients with acute pulmonary embolism, after appropriate risk stratification, some intermediate and high-risk patients should be considered for interventional-based treatment for PE.

The PERT Concept: A Step-by-Step Approach to Managing Pulmonary Embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major source of morbidity and mortality. The presentation of acute PE varies, ranging from few or no symptoms to sudden death. Patient outcome depends on how well the right ventricle can sustain the increased afterload caused by the embolic burden. Careful risk stratification is critical, and the PE response team (PERT) concept offers a rapid and multidisciplinary approach. Anticoagulation is essential unless contraindicated; thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, and catheter-directed approaches are also available. Clinical consensus statements have been published that offer a guide to PE management, but areas remain for which the evidence is inadequate. Although the management of low-risk and high-risk patients is more straightforward, optimal management of intermediate-risk patients remains controversial. In this document, we offer a case-based approach to PE management, beginning with diagnosis and risk stratification, followed by therapeutic alternatives, and finishing with follow-up care.

Comparison of 4 Acute Pulmonary Embolism Mortality Risk Scores in Patients Evaluated by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams

IMPORTANCE

The risk of death from acute pulmonary embolism can range as high as 15%, depending on patient factors at initial presentation. Acute treatment decisions are largely based on an estimate of this mortality risk.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the performance of risk assessment scores in a modern, US cohort of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter cohort study was conducted between October 2016 and October 2017 at 8 hospitals participating in the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) Consortium registry. Included patients were adults who presented with acute pulmonary embolism and had sufficient information in the medical record to calculate risk scores. Data analysis was performed from March to May 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All-cause mortality (7- and 30-day) and associated discrimination were assessed by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Among 416 patients with acute pulmonary embolism (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [17.6] years; 207 men [49.8%]), 7-day mortality in the low-risk groups ranged from 1.3% (1 patient) to 3.1% (4 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 2.6% (1 patient) to 10.2% (13 patients). Among patients in the highest-risk groups, the 7-day mortality ranged from 7.0% (18 patients) to 16.3% (7 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 14.4% (37 patients) to 26.3% (26 patients). Each of the risk stratification tools had modest discrimination for 7-day mortality (AUC range, 0.616-0.666) with slightly lower discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC range, 0.550-0.694).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that commonly used risk tools for acute pulmonary embolism have modest estimating ability. Future studies to develop and validate better risk assessment tools are needed.

Expert opinion on the creating and operating of the regional Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT). Polish PERT Initiative

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) is a multidisciplinary team established to stratify risk and choose optimal treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Established for the first time at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2013, PERT is based on a concept combining a Rapid Response Team and a Heart Team. The growing role of PERTs in making individual therapeutic decisions is identified, especially in hemodynamically unstable patients with contraindications to thrombolysis or with co-morbidities, as well as in patients with intermediate-high risk in whom a therapeutic decision may be difficult. The purpose of this document is to define the standards of PERT under Polish conditions, based on the experience of teams already operating in Poland, which formed an agreement called the Polish PERT Initiative. The goals of Polish PERT Initiative are: improving the treatment of patients with PE at local, regional and national levels, gathering, assessing and sharing data on the effectiveness of PE treatment (including various types of catheter-directed therapy), education on optimal treatment of PE, creating expert documents and supporting scientific research, as well as cooperation with other communities and scientific societies.

Adoption of a dedicated multidisciplinary team is associated with improved survival in acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Acute pulmonary embolism remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Benefit of recently developed multidisciplinary PE response teams (PERT) with higher utilization of advanced therapies has not been established.

METHODS

To evaluate patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary PERT we performed a retrospective analysis of 554 patients with acute PE at the university of Virginia between July 2014 and June 2015 (pre-PERT era) and between April 2017 through October 2018 (PERT era). Six-month survival, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), type of PE therapy, and in-hospital bleeding were assessed upon collected data.

RESULTS

317 consecutive patients were treated for acute PE during an 18-month period following institution of a multidisciplinary PE program; for 120 patients PERT was activated (PA), the remaining 197 patients with acute PE were considered as a separate, contemporary group (NPA). The historical, comparator cohort (PP) was composed of 237 patients. These 3 groups were similar in terms of baseline demographics, comorbidities and risk, as assessed by the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI). Patients in the historical cohort demonstrated worsened survival when compared with patients treated during the PERT era. During the PERT era no statistically significant difference in survival was observed in the PA group when compared to the NPA group despite significantly higher severity of illness among PA patients. Hospital LOS was not different in the PA group when compared to either the NPA or PP group. Hospital costs did not differ among the 3 cohorts. 30-day re-admission rates were significantly lower during the PERT era. Rates of advanced therapies were significantly higher during the PERT era (9.1% vs. 2%) and were concentrated in the PA group (21.7% vs. 1.5%) without any significant rise in in-hospital bleeding complications.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, all-cause mortality in patients with acute PE has significantly and durably decreased with the adoption of a PERT program without incurring additional hospital costs or protracting hospital LOS. Our data suggest that the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach at some institutions may provide benefit to select patients with acute PE.

COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-Up: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, because of excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, the authors review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, of those with pre-existing thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Value-based assessment of implementing a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT)

PERTs are a new, multidisciplinary approach to PE care. They were conceived to efficiently identify and risk stratify PE patients and standardize care delivery. More research needs to be conducted to assess the effects that PERTs have had on PE care. This study sought to determine the effects of a PERT on quality and overall value of care. This was a retrospective study of all patients 18 years of age or older who presented with a principal diagnosis of an acute PE based on available ICD codes from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018. Patients who did not have an imaging study, i.e., CTPA or ECHO, available were excluded. Patients were divided into pre- (before October 2015) and post-PERT eras (after October 2015) and stratified based on the presence of right heart strain/dysfunction on imaging. All quality outcomes were extracted from the EMR, and cost outcomes were provided by the financial department. 530 individuals (226 pre-PERT and 304 post-PERT) were identified for analysis. Quality outcomes improved between the eras; most notably in-hospital mortality decreased (16.5 vs. 9.6) and hospital LOS decreased (7.7 vs. 4.4) (p < 0.05). Total cost of care also decreased a statistically significant amount between the eras. The implementation of a PERT improved quality and cost of care, resulting in improved value. We hypothesize that this may be due to more timely identification and risk stratification leading to earlier interventions and streamlined decision making, but further research is required to validate these findings in larger cohorts.

International Survey of Thrombolytic Use for Treatment of Cardiac Arrest Due to Massive Pulmonary Embolism

Objectives

This survey sought to characterize the national prescribing patterns and barriers to the use of thrombolytic agents in the treatment of pulmonary embolism, with a specific focus on treatment during actual or imminent cardiac arrest.

Design

A 19-question international, cross-sectional survey on thrombolytic use in pulmonary embolism was developed, validated, and administered. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine factors predictive of utilization of thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to pulmonary embolism.

Setting

International survey study.

Subjects

Physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who were members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

Interventions

None.

Measurements and Main Results

Thrombolytic users were compared with nonusers. Respondents (n = 272) predominately were physicians (62.1%) or pharmacists (30.5%) practicing in an academic medical center (54.8%) or community teaching setting (24.6%). Thrombolytic users (n = 177; 66.8%) were compared with nonusers (n = 88; 33.2%) Thrombolytic users were more likely to work in pulmonary/critical care (80.2% thrombolytic use vs 59.8%; p < 0.01) and emergency medicine (6.8% vs 3.5%; p < 0.01). Users were more likely to have an institutional guideline or policy in place pertaining to the use of thrombolytics in cardiac arrest (27.8% vs 13.6%; p < 0.01) or have a pulmonary embolism response team (38.6% vs 19.3%; p < 0.01). Lack of evidence supporting use and the risk of adverse outcomes were barriers to thrombolytic use. Working in a pulmonary/critical care environment (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.24-4.52) and comfort level (odds ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.7-4.53) were predictive of thrombolytic use in the multivariable analysis.

Conclusions

Most survey respondents used thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to known or suspected pulmonary embolism. This survey study adds important data to the literature surrounding thrombolytics for pulmonary embolism as it describes thrombolytic user characteristic, barriers to use, and common prescribing practices internationally.

Interventional Therapies in Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) historically included anticoagulation and systemic thrombolytic therapy. More recently, catheter guided interventions provided promise of mitigating bleeding risks usually associated with systemic thrombolysis in intermediate to high risk PE patients. Catheter based interventions can broadly be divided into catheter directed thrombolysis and catheter based embolectomy. Both modalities are currently undergoing active research and each has their respective risks and benefits. The decision to administer these advanced therapies for acute PE can be challenging but can be accomplished via a multi-disciplinary PE response team.

Diagnosis, Treatment and Follow Up of Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Consensus Practice from the PERT Consortium

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There have been many advances in the field of PE in the last few years, requiring a careful assessment of their impact on patient care. However, variations in recommendations by different clinical guidelines, as well as lack of robust clinical trials, make clinical decisions challenging. The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium is an international association created to advance the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with PE. In this consensus practice document, we provide a comprehensive review of the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE, including both clinical data and consensus opinion to provide guidance for clinicians caring for these patients.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Availability on Management and Outcomes

Treatment strategies for complex patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are often debated given patient heterogeneity, multitude of available treatment modalities, and lack of consensus guidelines. Although multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) are emerging to address this lack of consensus, their impact on patient outcomes is not entirely clear. This analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of all patients with PE before and after PERT availability. We analyzed all adult patients admitted with acute PE diagnosed on computed tomography scans in the 18 months before and after the institution of PERT at a large tertiary care hospital. Among 769 consecutive inpatients with PE, PERT era patients had lower rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (17.0% vs 8.3%, p = 0.002), shorter time-to-therapeutic anticoagulation (16.3 hour vs 12.6 hour, p = 0.009) and decreased use of inferior vena cava filters (22.2% vs 16.4%, p = 0.004). There was an increase in the use of thrombolytics/catheter-based strategies, however, this did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was a significant decrease in 30-day/inpatient mortality (8.5% vs 4.7%, p = 0.03). These differences in outcomes were more pronounced in intermediate and high-risk patients (mortality 10.0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.02). The availability of multidisciplinary PERT was associated with improved outcomes including 30-day mortality. Patients with higher severity of PE seemed to derive most benefit from PERT availability.

Interventional Therapies for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Current Status and Principles for the Development of Novel Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The technological landscape for management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE is rapidly evolving. Two interventional devices using pharmacomechanical means to recanalize the pulmonary arteries have recently been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing, and several others are in various stages of development. The purpose of this document is to clarify the current state of endovascular interventional therapy for acute PE and to provide considerations for evidence development for new devices that will define which patients with PE would derive the greatest net benefit from their use in various clinical settings. First, definitions and limitations of commonly used risk stratification tools for PE are reviewed. An adjudication of risks and benefits of available interventional therapies for PE follows. Next, considerations for optimal future evidence development in this field are presented in the context of the current US regulatory framework. Finally, the document concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons of the rapidly expanding PE response team model of care delivery.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Purpose, evidence for efficacy, and future research directions

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although new therapeutic tools and strategies have recently been developed for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with PE, the outcomes for patients who present with massive or high-risk PE remain dismal. To address this crisis, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being created around the world in an effort to immediately and simultaneously engage multiple specialists to determine the best course of action and coordinate the clinical care for patients with acute PE. The scope of this review is to describe the PERT model and purpose, present the structure and organization, examine the available evidence for efficacy and usefulness, and propose future directions for research that is needed to demonstrate the value of PERT and determine if this multidisciplinary approach represents a new standard of care.

Update on Thrombolytic Therapy in Acute Pulmonary Thromboembolism

Thrombolytic treatment accelerates the dissolution of thrombus in acute pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) and is potentially a lifesaving treatment. High-risk PTE is the clearest indication for this therapy, and its use in intermediate-risk cases is still controversial. A PTE response team may enable a rapid and effective determination of risk and treatment in these controversial clinical cases. Approved thrombolytic agents for the PTE treatment are streptokinase, urokinase, and alteplase. Currently, the most widely used agent is alteplase. It has a short infusion time (2 h) and a rapid effect. Newer, unapproved agents for the PTE treatment are tenecteplase and reteplase. The active resolution of thrombus via thrombolytic agents improves rapidly pulmonary perfusion, hemodynamic defect, gas exchange, and right ventricular dysfunction. However, it is important to determine appropriate candidates carefully, to prevent hemorrhage, which is the most important side effect of these drugs. Catheter-directed thrombolysis seems to be an alternative in patients not eligible for systemic thrombolytic therapy.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: Inpatient Structure, Outpatient Follow-up, and Is It the Current Standard of Care?

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) are being created around the United States to immediately and simultaneously bring together multiple specialists to determine the best course of action and coordinate clinical care for patients with severe pulmonary embolism (PE). The organization and structure of each PERT will depend on local clinical demands and resources. Creating a follow up clinic for PE patients after discharge from the hospital is an essential component of any PERT program. PERT programs, which have come together to form the PERT Consortium®, are changing the landscape of PE treatment and may represent a new standard of care.

The implementation of a pulmonary embolism response team in the management of intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Massive and submassive pulmonary embolism (PE) can be life-threatening. Treatment options include anticoagulation, fibrinolysis, catheter-directed or open surgical thrombus removal, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. With increasing patient complexity and advanced therapeutic options, the approach to optimal care for patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE is not clearly established. Multidisciplinary, rapid response teams can optimize risk stratification and expedite management. A PE response team (PERT) composed of specialists from cardiology, vascular surgery, emergency medicine, pulmonary and critical care, interventional radiology, cardiac surgery, hospital medicine, and pharmacy was created at our institution. The team is tasked with evaluating and treating patients with massive and submassive PE by use of a risk stratification and treatment algorithm. We describe our initial experience with this approach.

METHODS

The records of patients treated by the PERT since inception in October 2015 through May 2017 were reviewed (intervention group). The diagnoses codes of the PERT patients were retrieved from the Vizient database. A retrospective control cohort group was created using these specific diagnoses and a matching set of demographics (age, sex), Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group, admission severity of illness, and admission risk of mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test, the Pearson χ² statistic, Student t-test, and Cochran-Cox approximation. P < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

During the time interval, 77 patients with massive or submassive PE were treated by PERT activation; 992 patients included in the control group were treated at the discretion of an attending physician without use of the algorithm from October 2013 to 2016. Both groups had similar demographics, similar distribution of risk of mortality and severity of illness, and similar average Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group weighting. There was no statistically significant difference in the mortality rate between the two groups. The PERT group had significantly lower intensive care unit stay and overall length of stay. No difference was seen in direct cost between the two groups despite higher use of interventional treatment modalities in the PERT group.

CONCLUSIONS

In our institution, assembly of a dedicated team to treat patients with massive or submassive PE according to a clinical algorithm resulted in expedited treatment and reduced variation of care. Intensive care unit stay and overall length of stay were reduced by this approach, with no impact on direct cost despite the use of advanced modalities of treatment. We believe that this paradigm can be of potential value in other disease entities, particularly when multiple disciplines are involved.

Changes in treatment and outcomes after creation of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT), a 10-year analysis

Multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being implemented to improve care of patients with life-threatening PE. We sought to determine how the creation of PERT affects treatment and outcomes of patients with serious PE. A pre- and post-intervention study was performed using an interrupted time series design, to compare patients with PE before (2006-2012) and after (2012-2016) implementation of PERT at a university hospital. T-tests, Chi square tests and logistic regression were used to compare outcomes, and multivariable regression were used to adjust for differences in PE severity. Two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. For the interrupted time-series analysis, data was divided into mutually exclusive 6-month time periods (11 pre- and 7 post-PERT). To examine changes in treatment and outcomes associated with PERT, slopes and change points were compared pre- and post-PERT. Two-hundred and twelve pre-PERT and 228 post-PERT patients were analyzed. Patient demographics were generally similar, though pre-PERT, PE were more likely to be low-risk (37% vs. 19%) while post-PERT, PE were more likely to be submassive (32% vs. 49%). More patients underwent catheter directed therapy (1% vs. 14%, p = < 0.0001) or any advanced therapy (19 [9%] vs. 44 [19%], p = 0.002) post PERT. Interrupted time series analysis demonstrated that this increase was sudden and coincident with implementation of PERT, and most noticeable among patients with submassive PE. There were no differences in major bleeding or mortality pre- and post-PERT. While the use of advanced therapies, particularly catheter-directed therapies, increased after creation of PERT, especially among patients with submassive PE, there was no apparent increase in bleeding.