Assessing the Impact of a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team and Treatment Protocol on Patients Presenting With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Clearing Disseminated Venous Thromboembolism in a Single Procedure Using Thrombolytic-Free Large Bore Suction Thrombectomy: A Versatile Toolbox to Unclog the Venous Circulation

Disseminated venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs commonly in cancer patients, who tend to have contraindications to systemic thrombolysis and require cancer surgery. Such clinical scenarios are often challenging to manage. In this case report, we illustrate an innovative, single procedural approach in such a patient to remove extensive VTE, improve symptoms, prevent hemodynamic decompensation, and allow for a minimal level of anticoagulation such that necessary cancer surgery can proceed safely.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams-Evidence of Benefits? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Venous thromboembolisms constitute a major cause of morbidity and mortality with 60,000 to 100,000 deaths attributed to pulmonary embolism in the US annually. Both clinical presentations and treatment strategies can vary greatly, and the selection of an appropriate therapeutic strategy is often provider specific. A pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) offers a multidisciplinary approach to clinical decision making and the management of high-risk pulmonary emboli. There is insufficient data on the effect of PERT programs on clinical outcomes. Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane to identify PERT studies through March 2024. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes included the rates of surgical thrombectomy, catheter directed thrombolysis, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and ICU length of stay (ICULOS). We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool to assess studies' quality. We used random-effects models to compare outcomes between the pooled populations and moderator analysis to identify sources of heterogeneity and perform subgroup analysis. Results: We included 13 observational studies, which comprised a total of 12,586 patients, 7512 (60%) patients were from the pre-PERT period and 5065 (40%) patients were from the PERT period. Twelve studies reported the rate of all-cause mortality for their patient population. Patients in the PERT period were associated with similar odds of all-cause mortality as patients in the pre-PERT period (OR: 1.52; 95% CI: 0.80-2.89; p = 0.20). In the random-effects meta-analysis, there was no significant difference in ICULOS between PERT and pre-PERT patients (difference in means: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.49; p = 0.68). There was no statistically significant difference in HLOS between the two groups (difference in means: -0.82; 95% CI: -2.86 to 1.23; p = 0.43). Conclusions: This meta-analysis demonstrates no significant difference in all studied measures in the pre- and post-PERT time periods, which notably included patient mortality and length of stay. Further study into the details of the PERT system at institutions reporting mortality benefits may reveal practice differences that explain the outcome discrepancy and could help optimize PERT implementation at other institutions.

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.

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.

Comparison of Treatment Approaches and Subsequent Outcomes within a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Registry

Objectives

To characterize the association between pulmonary embolism (PE) severity and bleeding risk with treatment approaches, outcomes, and complications.

Methods

Secondary analysis of an 11-hospital registry of adult ED patients treated by a PE response team (August 2016-November 2022). Predictors were PE severity and bleeding risk. The primary outcome was treatment approach: anticoagulation monotherapy vs. advanced intervention (categorized as "immediate" or "delayed" based on whether the intervention was received within 12 hours of PE diagnosis or not). Secondary outcomes were death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding.

Results

Of the 1832 patients, 139 (7.6%), 977 (53.3%), and 9 (0.5%) were classified as high-risk, intermediate-high, intermediate-low, and low-risk severity, respectively. There were 94 deaths (5.1%) and 218 patients (11.9%) had one or more clinical deterioration events. Advanced interventions were administered to 86 (61.9%), 195 (27.6%), and 109 (11.2%) patients with high-risk, intermediate-high, and intermediate-low severity, respectively.Major bleeding occurred in 61/1440 (4.2%) on ACm versus 169/392 (7.6%) with advanced interventions (p <0.001): bleeding withcatheter-directed thrombolysiswas 19/145 (13.1%) versus 33/154(21.4%) with systemic thrombolysis,p= 0.07. High risk was twice as strong as intermediate-high risk for association with advanced intervention (OR: 5.3 (4.2 and 6.9) vs. 1.9 (1.6 and 2.2)). High risk (OR: 56.3 (32.0 and 99.2) and intermediate-high risk (OR: 2.6 (1.7 and 4.0)) were strong predictors of clinical deterioration. Major bleeding was significantly associated with advanced interventions (OR: 5.2 (3.5 and 7.8) for immediate, 3.3 (1.8 and 6.2)) for delayed, and high-risk PE severity (OR: 3.4 (1.9 and 5.8)).

Conclusions

Advanced intervention use was associated with high-acuity patients experiencing death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding with a trend towards less bleeding with catheter-directed interventions versus systemic thrombolysis.

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.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023

RATIONALE

Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients.

PANEL DESIGN

The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

METHODS

We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs).

RESULTS

The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Large-bore suction thrombectomy for sub-massive pulmonary embolism during second trimester of pregnancy: a case report

Background

Pregnancy-associated pulmonary embolism (PAPE) remains a significant cause of maternal mortality. Anticoagulation remains the mainstay of therapy for most pulmonary embolism (PE)-related pregnancies. However, in patients with haemodynamic compromise or those refractory to anticoagulation, management is challenging. Systemic thrombolysis is associated with a substantial risk of maternal bleeding and fetal loss. In non-pregnant PE patients, large bore catheter-directed suction thrombectomy is a proven and important technique to manage intermediate or high-risk PE, allowing for normalization of pulmonary pressures, avoidance of haemodynamic deterioration, without the need for thrombolytics, major surgery, significant blood loss, or prolonged hospitalization.

Case summary

A primigravid patient in her second trimester of pregnancy, initially diagnosed with a deep vein thrombosis refractory to heparin, presents with near-syncope due to sub-massive pulmonary embolism. The various management options including thrombolysis and surgical embolectomy etc. were discussed in detail by a multi-disciplinary PE team. She underwent large bore suction thrombectomy with complete thrombi removal, normalization of right heart strain, without the need for thrombolytics or surgery, minimal blood loss and was discharged after a short length of stay. She gave birth at term to a healthy infant.

Conclusion

Suction thrombectomy is an important consideration for physicians managing high-risk PAPE and is likely to be associated with much a lower risk of maternal and fetal mortality compared to thrombolysis or surgery.

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.

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.

Unmet Needs and Future Direction for Pulmonary Embolism Interventions

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) usually develops in the deep veins of the extremities. Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a type of VTE that is most commonly (∼90%) caused by a thrombus that originates from the deep veins of the lower extremities. PE is the third most common cause of death after myocardial infarction and stroke. In this review, the authors investigate and discuss the risk stratification and definitions of the aforementioned categories of PE and further explore the management of acute PE along with the types of catheter-based treatment options and their efficacy.

First use of large-bore suction thrombectomy for acute pulmonary embolism in Asia-Pacific: feasibility and short-term clinical outcomes

Clinical outcomes for intermediate or high-risk pulmonary emboli (PE) remain sub-optimal, with limited improvements in survival for the past 15 years. Anticoagulation alone results in slow thrombus resolution, persistent right ventricular (RV) dysfunction, patients remaining at risk of haemodynamic decompensation and increased likelihood of incomplete recovery. Thrombolysis elevates risk of major bleeding and is thus reserved for high-risk PE. Thus, a huge clinical need exists for an effective technique to restore pulmonary perfusion with minimal risk and avoidance of lytic therapy. In 2021, large bore suction thrombectomy (ST) was introduced in Asia for the first time and this study assessed the feasibility and short-term outcomes of Asian patients undergoing ST for acute PE. 40 consecutive patients (58% male, mean age of 58.3 ± 16.6 years) with intermediate (87.5%) or high-risk PE (12.5%) were enrolled in this prospective registry. 20% had prior VTE, 42.5% had contraindications to thrombolysis, and 10% failed to respond to thrombolysis. PE was idiopathic in 40%, associated with active cancer in 15% and post-operative status in 12.5%. Procedural time was 124 ± 30 min. Emboli were aspirated in all patients without the need for thrombolytics, resulting in a 21.4% reduction in mean pulmonary arterial pressures and 123% increase TASPE-PASP ratio, a prognostic measure of RV-arterial coupling. (both p < 0.001) Procedural complications were 5% and 87.5% patients survived to discharge without symptomatic VTE recurrence during 184 days of mean follow-up. ST affords an effective reperfusion option for PE without thrombolytics, normalises RV overload and provides excellent short-term clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

Evaluation of the impact of an integrated care pathway for pulmonary embolism: a quasi-experimental pre-post study

Background

An integrated care pathway (ICP) is intended to improve the management of prevalent resource-consuming, life-threatening diseases. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the quality of patient care improved with the establishment of a dedicated unit for pulmonary embolism (PE).

Methods

A quasi-experimental pre-post study (pre: years 2010–2013; post: 2015–2020; year 2014, “washing” period) of PE patients ≥18 years (January 2010–June 2020). The intervention involved the implementation of an ICP for PE.

Results

The sample was composed of 1,142 patients (510 pre-intervention and 612 post-intervention) without significant differences between the two populations. In the post-intervention period, significant reductions were observed in the median length of hospital stay (LOS) (8 vs. 6 days); time to start of oral anticoagulation therapy (4.5 vs. 3.5 days; P<0.001); and the percentage of patients with high-risk PE in whom recanalization was not contraindicated (66.7% vs. 96%; P=0.009). In-hospital and 30-day mortality decreased, although not significantly (4.5% vs. 2.8%; P=0.188; 6.1% vs. 5.2%; P=0.531, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the median LOS intervention decreased significantly according to the service where patients were referred to, and with the use of the simplified PESI. During follow-up, lifelong anticoagulation was prescribed to a higher proportion of patients in the post-intervention period (30.7% vs. 69.3%; P<0.001).

Conclusions

Although an ICP for PE does not reduce mortality significantly, it improves the quality of patient care.

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.

Overview of Options for Mechanical Circulatory Support

Mechanical circulatory support is used widely in acute setting of myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and cardiogenic shock as well as in chronic scenarios with advanced end-stage heart failure. Different algorithmic approaches can help the clinician decide the type of support required in a high morbidity and mortality setting. It is paramount to emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach to make steadfast decisions in the acute settings of cardiogenic shock.

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.

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.

First year experience of a pulmonary embolism response team with comparisons of outcomes between catheter directed therapy versus standard anticoagulation

Objectives: The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) model is now widely adopted in many institutions to provide multidisciplinary care for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, descriptive experiences of PERT operations and studies on clinical outcomes remain limited.Methods: We performed a retrospective review of PERT activations at an academic tertiary care center, with secondary aims to study outcomes associated with performing catheter directed therapies (CDT).Results: The intermediate high-risk PE category was most frequent (n = 40, 76.9%) among the 52 total cases evaluated during the study period. There was one in-hospital mortality, associated with hospice admission for a non-PE diagnosis. Six patients (11.5%) experienced a bleeding complication of any severity. Anticoagulation (AC) alone was recommended in 30 patients (57.7%) and CDT was performed in 16 patients (30.8%). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or disease severity between patients in the AC group versus the CDT group, except for a higher prevalence of malignancy in the AC group (p = 0.037). Patients who underwent CDT demonstrated a lower, albeit non-significant, median intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.34) and hospital LOS (4 vs. 5 days, p = 0.25), as compared to patients receiving AC alone. Bleeding rates were similar between the two groups (6.7% vs. 6.3%, p = 1.0).Conclusions: Adoption of the PERT model at an academic tertiary care center was associated with acceptably low rates of mortality and bleeding, similar to other published studies. Performing CDT in select patients under PERT consultation may be associated with shorter ICU and hospital LOS; however, larger studies are needed to validate this finding.