Pulmonary Embolism and Unfractionated Heparin: Time to End the Roller Coaster Ride

International Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Harmony, Dissonance, and Silence

Despite abundant clinical innovation and burgeoning scientific investigation, pulmonary embolism (PE) has continued to pose a diagnostic and management challenge worldwide. Aging populations, patients living with a mounting number of chronic medical conditions, particularly cancer, and increasingly prevalent health care disparities herald a growing burden of PE. In the meantime, navigating expanding strategies for immediate and long-term anticoagulation, as well as advanced therapies, including catheter-based interventions for patients with more severe PE, has become progressively daunting. Accordingly, clinicians frequently turn to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic and management recommendations. However, numerous international guidelines, heterogeneity in recommendations, as well as areas of uncertainty or omission may leave the readers and clinicians without a clear management pathway. In this review of international PE guidelines, we highlight key areas of consistency, difference, and lack of recommendations (silence) with an emphasis on critical clinical and research needs.

Innovation in Catheter-Directed Therapy for Intermediate-High-Risk and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

Although anticoagulation remains the cornerstone treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), catheter-directed therapy (CDT) has generated great interest as an adjunctive option for those presenting with hemodynamic decompensation or high risk for deterioration and in whom systemic thrombolysis has failed or is contraindicated. However, randomized controlled data supporting the efficacy and safety of CDT in addition to antithrombotic therapy in patients with high-risk and intermediate- to high-risk PE compared with anticoagulation and systemic thrombolysis alone are lacking. This paucity of high-quality data hampers guideline recommendations regarding the optimal therapeutic approach in such patients with PE. The aim of the present paper is to critically appraise the current evidence for CDT in patients with high-risk and intermediate- to high-risk PE and to highlight major areas of innovation in the recent literature. In addition, the authors describe unmet clinical and research needs, potential strategies to resolve these knowledge gaps, and pathways for device selection.

Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Evidence, Innovation, and Horizons

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The goal of this review is to discuss the most up-to-date literature on epidemiology, diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of acute PE.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite an increase in annual incidence rate of PE in the United States and development of multiple advanced therapies for treatment of acute PE, PE-related mortality is not consistently decreasing across populations. Although multiple risk stratification schemes have been developed, it is still unclear which advanced therapy should be used for the individual patient and optimal timing. Fortunately, multiple randomized clinical trials are underway to answer these questions. Nevertheless, up to 50% of patients have persistent reduced quality of life 6 months after acute PE, termed post-PE syndrome. Despite advances in therapeutic options for management of acute PE, many questions remain unanswered, including optimal risk stratification and management of acute PE.

Emergency department diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism

Despite advances in clinical decision support, the diagnosis, prognostic risk stratification, treatment and disposition of emergency department patients with pulmonary embolism remain challenging. The use of diagnostic risk stratification tools and D-dimer can decrease unnecessary exposure to radiation and intravenous contrast; however, D-dimer is elevated in many conditions including normal pregnancy, so imaging is often indicated. Once diagnosed, prognostic risk stratification tools can inform treatment decisions across the risk spectrum, including identifying low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism who can safely be treated at home. For patients requiring hospitalization, alternatives to unfractionated heparin can improve time to therapeutic anticoagulation and reduce treatment-related bleeding risk.

Early predictors of clinical deterioration in intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism: clinical needs, research imperatives, and pathways forward

A subset of intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients will suffer clinical deterioration in the early hours following the acute event. Current evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute PE have provided limited direction for identification of which intermediate-high risk PE patients will go on to develop haemodynamic decompensation. Furthermore, a paucity of data further hampers guideline recommendations regarding the optimal approach and duration of intensive monitoring, best methods to assess the early response to anticoagulation, and the ideal window for reperfusion therapy, if decompensation threatens. The aim of the present article is to identify the current unmet needs related to the early identification of intermediate-high risk PE patients at higher risk of clinical deterioration and mortality during the early hours after the acute cardiovascular event and suggest some potential strategies to further explore gaps in the literature.

Addressing the rising trend of high-risk pulmonary embolism mortality: Clinical and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Deaths from high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) appear to have increased in the US over the last decade. Modifiable risks contributing to this worrisome trend present opportunities for physicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers to improve care.

METHODS

We sought to contextualize contemporary, high-risk PE epidemiology and examine clinical trials, quality improvement opportunities, and healthcare policy initiatives directed at reducing mortality.

RESULTS

We observed significant and modifiable excess mortality due to high-risk PE. We identified several opportunities to improve care including: (1) rapid translation of forthcoming data on reperfusion strategies into clinical practice; (2) improved risk stratification tools; (3) quality improvement initiatives to address presumptive anticoagulation practice gaps; and (3) adoption of health policy initiatives to establish pulmonary embolism response teams and address the social determinants of health.

CONCLUSION

Addressing knowledge and practice gaps in intermediate and high-risk PE management must be prioritized and informed by forthcoming high-quality data. Implementation efforts are needed to improve acute PE management and resolve treatment disparities.