The role of the PERT team in 2021

Pulmonary embolism: a practical approach to update risk stratification and treatment decisions based on the guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a prevalent condition with a substantial morbi-mortality worldwide. Proper risk stratification of PE is essential for identifying the most suitable therapeutic strategy and the optimal care setting for the patient. This process entails evaluating various factors, including symptoms, comorbidities, and right heart dysfunction.

AREAS COVERED

This review assesses the tools and methods utilized to identify and stratify individuals based on the probability of developing deterioration or death related to PE. Current guidelines divide PE into three groups: high-risk (previously termed massive) PE, intermediate-risk (sub-massive) PE, and low-risk PE. Various risk scores, such as the simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI), Bova score, and the FAST score (incorporating Heart-Fatty Acid binding protein [H-ABP], Syncope, Tachycardia), aid in identifying patients at higher risk. Additionally, the Hestia score is instrumental in pinpointing low-risk patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Presently, there is a dearth of high-quality frameworks for the optimal management and treatment of PE patients at risk of hemodynamic collapse. A consortium of experts is in the process of formulating a new conceptual model for risk stratification, taking into account a comprehensive array of variables and outcomes to facilitate more individualized management of acute PE.

Mechanical Circulatory Support and Critical Care Management of High-Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Hemodynamically significant pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a widely prevalent, underdiagnosed condition associated with mortality rates as high as 30%. The main driver of poor outcomes is acute right ventricular failure that remains clinically challenging to diagnose and requires critical care management. Treatment of high-risk (or massive) acute PE has traditionally included systemic anticoagulation and thrombolysis. Mechanical circulatory support, including both percutaneous and surgical approaches, are emerging as treatment options for refractory shock due to acute right ventricular failure in the setting of high-risk acute pulmonary embolism.

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

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

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.