Surgical pulmonary embolectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis for treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism

Episode Care Costs Following Catheter-Directed Reperfusion Therapies for Pulmonary Embolism: A Literature-Based Comparative Cohort Analysis

This analysis aimed to estimate 30-day episode care costs associated with 3 contemporary endovascular therapies indicated for treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE). Systematic literature review was used to identify clinical research reporting costs associated with invasive PE care and outcomes for ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis (USAT), continuous-aspiration mechanical thrombectomy (CAMT), and volume-controlled-aspiration mechanical thrombectomy (VAMT). Total episode variable care costs were defined as the sum of device costs, variable acute care costs, and contingent costs. Variable acute care costs were estimated using methodology sensitive to periprocedural and postprocedural resource allocation unique to the 3 therapies. Contingent costs included expenses for thrombolytics, postprocedure bleeding events, and readmissions through 30 days. Through February 28, 2023, 70 sources were identified and used to inform estimates of 30-day total episode variable costs. Device costs for USAT, CAMT, and VAMT were the most expensive single component of total episode variable costs, estimated at $5,965, $10,279, and $11,901, respectively. Costs associated with catheterization suite utilization, intensive care, and hospital length of stay, along with contingent costs, were important drivers of total episode costs. Total episode variable care costs through 30 days were $19,146, $20,938, and $17,290 for USAT, CAMT, and VAMT, respectively. In conclusion, estimated total episode care costs after invasive treatment for PE are heavily influenced by device expense, in-hospital care, and postacute care complications. Regardless of device cost, strategies that avoid thrombolytics, reduce the need for intensive care unit care, shorten length of stay, and reduce postprocedure bleeding and 30-day readmissions contributed to the lowest episode costs.

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With or Without Advanced Intervention for Massive Pulmonary Embolism

INTRODUCTION

Massive pulmonary embolism (MPE) is a rare but highly fatal condition. Our study's objective was to evaluate the association between advanced interventions and survival among patients with MPE treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry data. We included adult patients with MPE who were treated with VA-ECMO during 2010-2020. Our Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; secondary outcomes were ECMO duration among survivors and rates of ECMO-related complications. Clinical variables were compared using the Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis H tests.

RESULTS

We included 802 patients; 80 (10%) received SPE and 18 (2%) received CDT. Overall, 426 (53%) survived to discharge; survival was not significantly different among those treated with SPE or CDT on VA-ECMO (70%) versus VA-ECMO alone (52%) or SPE or CDT before VA-ECMO (52%). Multivariable regression found a trend towards increased survival among those treated with SPE or CDT while on ECMO (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9-3.6), but no significant correlation. There was no association between advanced interventions and ECMO duration among survivors, or rates of ECMO-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Our study found no difference in survival in patients with MPE who received advanced interventions prior to ECMO, and a slight non-significant benefit in those who received advanced interventions while on ECMO.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis versus thrombectomy for submassive and massive pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Controversy surrounds the optimal therapy for submassive and massive pulmonary embolism (PE). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) versus surgical and catheter-based thrombectomy in patients with submassive and massive PE.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of CDT versus thrombectomy in submassive and massive PE. Studies were identified and data were extracted by two independent reviewers. A random effects model was used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, procedural complications, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmissions, and right ventricle/left ventricle (RV/LV) ratio improvement.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies with 1403 patients were included, of whom 50.0 % received CDT. Compared to thrombectomy, CDT was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality (RR 0.62; 95 % CI 0.43-0.89; p = 0.01) and similar rates of major bleeding (p = 0.61), blood transfusion (p = 0.41), stroke (p = 0.41), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.71). The hospital and ICU LOS, 30-day readmissions, and degree of RV/LV ratio improvement were similar between the two strategies (all p > 0.1). In subgroup analyses, in-hospital mortality was similar between CDT and catheter-based thrombectomy (p = 0.48) but lower with CDT compared with surgical thrombectomy (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with submassive and massive PE, CDT was associated with similar in-hospital mortality compared to catheter-based thrombectomy, but lower in-hospital mortality compared to surgical thrombectomy. Procedural complications, LOS, 30-day readmissions, and RV/LV ratio improvement were similar between CDT and any thrombectomy. Randomized controlled trials are indicated to confirm our findings.

The Challenge of Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism is a common disease that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; however, a standardized treatment protocol is not well-established.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Treatments available for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolisms include anticoagulation, systemic thrombolytics, catheter-directed therapies, surgical embolectomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Despite these options, there is no clear consensus on the optimal indication and timing of these interventions.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of treatment for pulmonary embolism; however, over the past 2 decades, there have been advances in the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed therapies. For massive pulmonary embolism, systemic thrombolytics and, sometimes, surgical thrombectomy are considered first-line treatments. Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism are at high risk of clinical deterioration; however, it is unclear whether anticoagulation alone is sufficient. The optimal treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism in the setting of hemodynamic stability with right heart strain present is not well-defined. Therapies such as catheter-directed thrombolysis and suction thrombectomy are being investigated given their potential to offload right ventricular strain. Several studies have recently evaluated catheter-directed thrombolysis and embolectomies and demonstrated the efficacy and safety of these interventions. Here, we review the literature on the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolisms and the evidence behind those interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many treatments available in the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Although the current literature does not favor 1 treatment as superior, multiple studies have shown growing data to support catheter-directed therapies as potential options for these patients. Multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams remain a key feature in improving the selection of advanced therapies and optimization of care.

Acute Management of High-Risk and Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism in Children: A Review

Severe forms of pulmonary embolism (PE) in children, althought rare, cause significant morbidity and mortality. We review the pathophysiologic features of severe (high-risk and intermediate-risk) PE and suggest novel pediatric-specific risk stratifications and an acute treatment algorithm to expedite emergent decision-making. We defined pediatric high-risk PE as causing cardiopulmonary arrest, sustained hypotension, or normotension with signs or symptoms of shock. Rapid primary reperfusion should be pursued with either surgical embolectomy or systemic thrombolysis in conjunction with a heparin infusion and supportive care as appropriate. We defined pediatric intermediate-risk PE as a lack of systemic hypotension or compensated shock, but with evidence of right ventricular strain by imaging, myocardial necrosis by elevated cardiac troponin levels, or both. The decision to pursue primary reperfusion in this group is complex and should be reserved for patients with more severe disease; anticoagulation alone also may be appropriate in these patients. If primary reperfusion is pursued, catheter-based therapies may be beneficial. Acute management of severe PE in children may include systemic thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, catheter-based therapies, or anticoagulation alone and may depend on patient and institutional factors. Pediatric emergency and intensive care physicians should be familiar with the risks and benefits of each therapy to expedite care. PE response teams also may have added benefit in streamlining care during these critical events.

High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Embolectomy and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common medical condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is the third most common cause of death in the United States. Historically, surgery for PE was associated with a high mortality rate, and this led to a significant decrease in the volume of operations being performed. However, significant improvements in patient selection and outcomes for surgical pulmonary embolectomy (SPE) at the end of the 20th century led to a renewed interest in the procedure. SPE was historically reserved for patients presenting with acute PE and hemodynamic collapse or cardiac arrest. Contemporary data has provided sufficient evidence to support earlier intervention for patients with acute PE who demonstrate clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic signs of right ventricular dysfunction. Institutions with cardiac surgery capabilities are implementing SPE earlier for the management of both massive and submassive PEs with excellent short-term and long-term outcomes. Recently, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been employed successfully to treat patients with massive PE. Excellent short-term outcomes have been reported for patients suffering from PE after treatment with VA-ECMO. Further research, specifically with randomized controlled trials, is needed to determine the appropriate timing and patient selection for the use of VA-ECMO in patients with PE. These data would lead to updated guidelines and algorithms incorporating VA-ECMO and SPE for patients with PE.

Advanced Management of Intermediate- and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: JACC Focus Seminar

Intermediate-risk (submassive) pulmonary embolism (PE) describes normotensive patients with evidence of right ventricular compromise, whereas high-risk (massive) PE comprises those who have experienced hemodynamic decompensation with hypotension, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest. Together, these 2 syndromes represent the most clinically challenging manifestations of the PE spectrum. Prompt therapeutic anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of therapy for both intermediate- and high-risk PE. Patients with intermediate-risk PE who subsequently deteriorate despite anticoagulation and those with high-risk PE require additional advanced therapies, typically focused on pulmonary artery reperfusion. Strategies for reperfusion therapy include systemic fibrinolysis, surgical pulmonary embolectomy, and a growing number of options for catheter-based therapy. Multidisciplinary PE response teams can aid in selection of appropriate management strategies, especially where gaps in evidence exist and guideline recommendations are sparse.

Analysis of pulmonary embolism patients treated with EkoSonic™ endovascular system

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of the EkoSonic™ endovascular system applications in patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism.

Methods

Between January 2018 and March 2019, a total of 15 patients (7 males, 8 females; mean age 64.7±17.8 years, range, 35 to 90 years) who underwent ultrasound-accelerated thrombolysis using the EkoSonic™ endovascular system for pulmonary embolism were retrospectively analyzed. The diagnosis of pulmonary embolism was made based on pulmonary computed tomography angiography. All patients were evaluated by echocardiography for right ventricular dysfunction and serum levels of troponin I and brain natriuretic peptide were recorded.

Results

The mean arterial blood gas oxygen saturation values of the patients before and after the procedure were 86.3±3.5% and 94.2±2.5%, respectively, indicating a statistically significant difference (p=0.001). The mean partial oxygen pressure values before and after the procedure were 73.3±7.7 mmHg and 90.7±5.0 mmHg, respectively, indicating a statistically significant difference (p=0.001). There was also a statistically significant difference in the mean right ventricular diameter before and after the procedure (p=0.001). The mean pre- and post-procedural pulmonary arterial pressure was 44±7.1 mmHg and 36.3±4.5 mmHg, respectively, indicating a statistically significant difference (p=0.001). Of the patients, 93.7% were free from post-procedural complications.

Conclusion

The EkoSonic™ endovascular system improved right ventricular dysfunction, decreased pulmonary arterial pressure, and improved oxygenation in patients with intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism without increasing the risk for bleeding.

Pulmonary Embolism in the Intensive Care Unit: Therapy in Subpopulations

The optimal management of a submassive or massive pulmonary embolism (PE) during pregnancy is unclear because of a lack of large clinical trials. Evaluation of the patient who may be a candidate for more aggressive therapy includes the use of biomarkers and echocardiogram for risk stratification. PE Response teams (PERTs) have gained increasing acceptance by the medical community and are being implemented in hospitals in the United States and worldwide. PERTs bring together a team of specialists from different disciplines to enhance decision-making in the patient with acute submassive and massive PE.

Pulmonary Hypertension in an Oncologic Intensive Care Unit

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is the condition of elevated pressures in the pulmonary circulation. PH can develop acutely in patients with critical illness such as acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, massive pulmonary embolism, left ventricular dysfunction, or after surgery. In a cancer patient, unique etiologies such as myeloproliferative disorders, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or tumor emboli may result in PH. Early recognition and treatment of the causative condition may reverse acute PH or return chronic PH to its baseline status. Progression of the disease or its decompensation due to infection, a thromboembolic event, or other triggers can lead to admission to an intensive care unit. Regardless of etiology, the development or worsening of PH may precipitate hypoxemia, hemodynamic instability, or right ventricular failure, which can be challenging to manage or even fatal. In select cases, rapid institution of advanced treatment modalities may be warranted. This chapter reviews the etiology, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnosis, and prognosis of PH and presents a comprehensive analysis of PH and right heart failure management strategies in the critical care setting. In particular, a unique perspective on oncologically relevant PH is provided.

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.