Reducing the hospital burden associated with the treatment of pulmonary embolism

The Clinical Impact of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index on the Length of Hospital Stay of Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) is an extensively validated prognostic score, but impact analyses of the PESI on management strategies, outcomes and health care costs are lacking. Our aim was to assess whether the adoption of the PESI for patients admitted to an internal medicine ward has the potential to safely reduce the length of hospital stay (LOS).

METHODS

We carried out a multicenter randomized controlled trial, enrolling consecutive adult outpatients diagnosed with acute PE and admitted to an internal medicine ward. Within 48 h after diagnosis, the treating physicians were randomized, for every patient, to calculate and report the PESI in the clinical record form on top of the standard of care (experimental arm) or to continue routine clinical practice (standard of care). The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier is NCT03002467.

RESULTS

This study was prematurely stopped due to slow recruitment. A total of 118 patients were enrolled at six internal medicine units from 2016 to 2019. The treating physicians were randomized to the use of the PESI for 59 patients or to the standard of care for 59 patients. No difference in the median LOS was found between the experimental arm (8, IQR 6-12) and the standard-of-care arm (8, IQR 6-12) (p = 0.63). A pre-specified secondary analysis showed that the LOS was significantly shorter among the patients who were treated with DOACs (median of 8 days, IQR 5-11) compared to VKAs or heparin (median of 9 days, IQR 7-12) (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The formal calculation of the PESI in the patients already admitted to internal medicine units did not impact the length of hospital stay.

Application of the RIETE score to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism: From the COMMAND VTE Registry

BACKGROUND

The RIETE score could be specifically useful for identification of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients for home treatment. However, the external validation of the RIETE score has been limited.

METHODS

The COMMAND VTE Registry is a multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). The current study population consisted of 1479 patients with acute PE, who were divided into 2 groups; RIETE scores of 0 (N = 260) and ≥ 1 (N = 1219).

RESULTS

The cumulative 10-day and 30-day incidences of a composite endpoint of all-cause death, recurrent PE, or major bleeding were lower in patients with the RIETE score of 0 than in those with the RIETE score of ≥1 (10-day: 0.4 % vs. 6.7 %, P < 0.001, and 30-day: 0.4 % vs. 10.0 %, P < 0.001). The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the RIETE score for the 10-day composite endpoint showed numerically better predictive ability than that in the sPESI score (0.77 vs. 0.73, P = 0.07), and the AUC in the RIETE score for the 30-day composite endpoint showed significantly better predictive ability than that in the sPESI score (0.77 vs. 0.71, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The RIETE score was well validated in the current large real-world registry. The RIETE score of 0 could identify patients with reasonably low risks of the 10-day and 30-day composite endpoint of all-cause death, recurrent PE, or major bleeding.

Home treatment versus early discharge for the outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism: A non-interventional, post-hoc cohort analysis

INTRODUCTION

We prospectively investigated whether home treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE), is as effective and safe as the recommended early discharge management in terms of outcomes at 3 months.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of prospectively and consecutively recorded data in acute PE patients from a tertiary care facility between January 2012 and November 2021. Home treatment was defined as discharge to home directly from the emergency department (ED) after <24 h stay. Early discharge was defined as in-hospital stay of ≥24 h and ≤48 h. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were a composite of PE-related death or recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, and major bleeding, respectively. Outcomes between groups were compared using penalized multivariable models.

RESULTS

In total, 181 patients (30.6 %) were included in the home treatment group and 463 (69.4 %) patients in the early discharge group. Median duration of ED stay was 8.1 h (IQR, 3.6-10.2 h) in the home treatment group, and median length of hospital stay was 36.4 h (IQR, 28.7-40.2) in the early discharge group. The adjusted rate of the primary efficacy outcome was 1.90 % (95 % CI, 0.16-15.2) vs 2.05 % (95 % CI, 0.24-10.1) for home treatment vs early discharge (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86 (95 % CI, 0.27-2.74). The adjusted rates of the primary safety outcome did not differ between groups at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In a non-randomized cohort of selected acute PE patients, home treatment provided comparable rates of adverse VTE and bleeding events to the recommended early discharge management, and appears to have similar clinical outcomes at 3 months.

Management and Outcomes of Adults Diagnosed with Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Primary Care: Community-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The management and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care have not been characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To describe 30-day outcomes stratified by initial site-of-care decisions DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Adults diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care in a large, diverse community-based US health system (2013-2019) MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day serious adverse events (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality). The secondary outcome was 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization, either initial or delayed.

KEY RESULTS

Among 652 patient encounters (from 646 patients), median age was 64 years; 51.5% were male and 70.7% identified as non-Hispanic white. Overall, 134 cases (20.6%) were sent home from primary care and 518 cases (79.4%) were initially referred to the emergency department (ED) or hospital. Among the referred, 196 (37.8%) were discharged home from the ED without events. Eight patients (1.2%; 95% CI 0.5-2.4%) experienced a 30-day serious adverse event: 4 venous thromboemboli (0.6%), 1 major bleed (0.2%), and 3 deaths (0.5%). Seven of these patients were initially hospitalized, and 1 had been sent home from primary care. All 3 deaths occurred in patients with known metastatic cancer initially referred to the ED, hospitalized, then enrolled in hospice following discharge. Overall, 328 patients (50.3%) were hospitalized within 7 days: 322 at the time of the index diagnosis and 6 following initial outpatient management (4 clinic-only and 2 clinic-plus-ED patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in this primary care setting uncommonly experienced 30-day adverse events, regardless of initial site-of-care decisions. Over 20% were managed comprehensively by primary care. Delayed 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization was rare among the 51% treated as outpatients. Primary care management of acute pulmonary embolism appears to be safe and could have implications for cost-effectiveness and patient care experience.

Risk stratification for clinical severity of pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer: a narrative review and MASCC clinical guidance for daily care

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The clinical presentation and outcomes of PE range from an acute life-threatening condition requiring intensive care to a mild symptomatic condition associated with favorable outcomes and potentially candidate for early hospital discharge. The wide clinical spectrum of PE has led to the development of risk stratification models aimed at the triage of patients in emergency care departments and optimizing the utilization of health care resources. Incidental or unsuspected PE (UPE), detected during routine staging computed tomography scans, make up a significant proportion of this cohort among the oncology population. The present narrative review is aimed at examining the currently available PE risk assessment models developed for the general population and for patients with cancer including UPE. We include general recommendations for the daily care of patients with cancer-related PE and hypothesize on the factors that would potentially favor hospitalization with early discharge or ambulatory management in this setting.

Effect of Prognostic Guided Management of Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism According to the European Society of Cardiology Risk Stratification Model

Background

A recent trial showed that management driven by prognostic assessment was effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) for acute stable pulmonary embolism (PE). The efficacy and safety of this strategy in each subgroup of risk stratification remains unknown.

Methods

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the randomized IPEP study to evaluate the effect of a management strategy guided by early use of a prognostic pathway in the low- and intermediate-high risk subgroups defined by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) model. These subgroups were retrospectively identified in the control arm. The primary outcome was LOS. The secondary outcomes were 30-day clinical outcomes.

Results

Of 249 patients assigned to the intervention group, 60 (24%) were classified as low-, and 30 (12%) as intermediate-high risk. Among 249 patients assigned to the control group, 66 (27%) were low-, and 13 (5%) intermediate-high risk. In the low-risk group, the mean LOS was 2.1 (±0.9) days in the intervention group and 5.3 (±2.9) days in the control group (P < 0.001). In this group, no significant differences were observed in 30-day readmissions (0% vs. 3.0%, respectively), all-cause (0% vs. 0%) and PE-related mortality rates (0% vs. 0%), or severe adverse events (0% vs. 1.5%). In the intermediate-high risk group, the mean LOS was 5.3 (±1.8) days in the intervention group and 6.5 (±2.5) days in the control group (P = 0.08). In this group, no significant differences were observed in 30-day readmissions (3.3% vs. 3.0%, respectively), all-cause (6.7% vs. 7.7%) and PE-related mortality rates (6.7% vs. 7.7%), or severe adverse events (16.7% vs. 15.4%).

Conclusion

The use of a prognostic assessment and management pathway was effective in reducing the LOS for acute PE without comprising safety across subgroups of risk stratification.

Clinical Trial Registration

[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT02733198].

Challenges in Managing Isolated Subsegmental Pulmonary Embolism

This commentary explores the clinical conundrums arising when caring for patients with acute pulmonary embolism isolated to the subsegmental pulmonary arteries. We discuss ways to confirm the radiologic diagnosis, how to distinguish patients for whom anticoagulation is indicated from those who are eligible for structured surveillance without anticoagulation, what surveillance entails, and why ensuring continuity of care matters. We report a case from our own experience that illustrates these decision-making crossroads and highlights the importance of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Because the evidence in the literature is currently weak and indirect, we draw on expert opinion in US and European guidelines, a recent statement from a multidisciplinary consensus panel, and several ongoing well-designed clinical trials. This discussion will help clinicians better manage the spectrum of patients who present with isolated subsegmental embolism.

A clinical decision framework to guide the outpatient treatment of emergency department patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis: Results from a multidisciplinary consensus panel

The outpatient treatment of select emergency department patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been shown to be safe, cost effective and associated with high patient satisfaction. Despite this, outpatient PE and DVT treatment remains uncommon. To address this, the American College of Emergency Physicians assembled a multidisciplinary team of content experts to provide evidence-based recommendations and practical advice to help clinicians safely treat patients with low-risk PE and DVT without hospitalization. The emergency clinician must stratify the patient's risk of clinical decompensation due to their PE or DVT as well as their risk of bleeding due to anticoagulation. The clinician must also select and start an anticoagulant and ensure that the patient has access to the medication in a timely manner. Reliable follow-up is critical, and the patient must also be educated about signs or symptoms that should prompt a return to the emergency department. To facilitate access to these recommendations, the consensus panel also created 2 web-based "point-of-care tools."

The prognostic value of respiratory symptoms and performance status in ambulatory cancer patients and unsuspected pulmonary embolism; analysis of an international, prospective, observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Optimal risk stratification of unsuspected pulmonary embolism (UPE) in ambulatory cancer patients (ACPs) remains unclear. Existing clinical predictive rules (CPRs) are derived from retrospective databases and have limitations. The UPE registry is a prospective international registry with pre-specified characteristics of ACPs with a recent UPE. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of risk factors captured in the UPE registry in predicting proximate (30-, 90- and 180-day) mortality and how they performed when applied to an existing CPR.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate risk factors for proximate mortality, overall survival, recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding, in the patients enrolled in the UPE registry cohort.

METHODS

Data from the 695 ACPs in this registry were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify predictors independently associated with proximate mortality and overall survival. The most consistent predictors were applied to the Hull CPR, an existing 5-point prediction rule.

RESULTS

The most consistent predictors of mortality were patient-reported respiratory symptoms within 14 days before, and ECOG performance status at the time of UPE. These predictors applied to the Hull-CPR produced a consistent correlation with proximate mortality and overall survival (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.70 [95% CI 0.63, 077], AUC = 0.65 [95% CI 0.60, 070], AUC = 0.64 [95% CI 0.59, 068], and AUC = 0.61, 95% CI 0.57, 0.65, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In ACPs with UPE, ECOG performance status logged contemporaneously to the UPE diagnosis and respiratory symptoms prior to UPE diagnosis can stratify mortality risk. When applied to the HULL-CPR these risk predictors confirmed the risk stratification clusters of low-intermediate and high-risk for proximate mortality as seen in the original derivation cohort.

Clinical factors associated with massive pulmonary embolism and PE-related adverse clinical events

Background

Clinicians evaluating acute PE patients often have to identify risks for massive PE, a measure of hemodynamic instability and its consequence, massive PE related adverse clinical events (PEACE). We investigated the association of these risk factors with massive PE and PEACE in a consecutive PE cohort (n = 364).

Methods

Massive PE was defined as an acute central clot (proximal to the lobar artery) in a patient with right heart strain and systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mg. PEACE was defined as any massive PE who died or required one or more of the following: ACLS, assisted ventilation, vasopressor use, thrombolytic therapy, or invasive thrombectomy, within seven days of PE diagnosis. Univariate and multivariate analysis assessing associations between the risk factors (age, gender, comorbidities, PE provoking risks, and whether the PE was felt to be idiopathic) and massive PE or PEACE were performed. Significance was determined at p < 0.05.

Results

Thirteen percent (n = 48) of patients presented with massive PE, and 9% (n = 32) had PEACE. In the final multivariate model, recent invasive procedure (RR = 7.4, p = 0.007), recent hospitalization (RR = 7.3, p = 0.002), and idiopathic PE (RR = 6.5, p = 0.003) were associated with massive PE. Only idiopathic PE (RR = 5.7, p = 0.005) was significantly associated with PEACE. No comorbidities or other PE provoking risks were associated with massive PE or PEACE.

Conclusions

As a take-home message, recent invasive procedure, recent hospitalization, and idiopathic PE were associated with massive PE, and only idiopathic PE was associated with PEACE. Simultaneously, comorbidities like age or chronic cardiopulmonary disease seem not to be associated with massive PE or PEACE.

Use of hospital resources in the care of patients with intermediate risk pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification and management of hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism remains challenging. Professional societies have published stratification schemes, but little is known about the management of patients with intermediate risk pulmonary embolism. We describe the care of these patients at an academic health system.

METHODS

Patient encounters from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2017 were retrospectively identified utilizing a multihospital, electronic health record-based data warehouse. Using the 2019 European Society of Cardiology criteria, differences in hospital resource utilization, defined as intensive care unit admission, use of invasive therapies, and length of stay, were examined in patients with intermediate risk characteristics.

RESULTS

A cohort of 322 intermediate risk patients, including 165 intermediate-low and 157 intermediate-high risk patients, was identified. Intermediate-high risk patients more often underwent catheter-directed therapy (14.0% vs. 1.8%; P<0.001) compared to intermediate-low risk patients and had a 50% higher rate of intensive care unit admission (relative risk 1.50; 95% confidence interval 1.06, 2.12; P=0.023). There was no difference in median intensive care unit length of stay (2.7 vs. 2.0 days; P=0.761) or hospital length of stay (5.0 vs. 5.0 days; P=0.775) between intermediate-high risk and intermediate-low risk patients. Patients that underwent invasive therapies had a 3.8-day shorter hospital length of stay (beta -3.75; 95% confidence interval -6.17, -1.32; P=0.002).

CONCLUSION

This study presents insights into the hospital resource utilization of patients with intermediate risk pulmonary embolism. The 2019 European Society of Cardiology risk stratification criteria are a clinically relevant scheme that identifies patients more often treated with intensive care unit admission and advanced therapies.

Primary care physicians comprehensively manage acute pulmonary embolism without higher-level-of-care transfer: A report of two cases

RATIONALE

The evidence for outpatient pulmonary embolism (PE) management apart from hospitalization is expanding. The availability and ease of direct oral anticoagulants have facilitated this transition. The literature, however, is sparse on the topic of comprehensive management of pulmonary embolism in the primary care clinic setting. As such, the role of the primary care physician in the complete diagnosis, risk stratification for outpatient eligibility, and initiation of treatment is unclear.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

Case 1: A 33-year-old man with known heterozygous Factor V Leiden mutation and a remote history of deep vein thrombosis presented to his primary care physician's office with 2 days of mild pleuritic chest pain and a dry cough after a recent transcontinental flight. Case 2: A 48-year-old man with a complex medical history including recent transverse myelitis presented to his primary care family physician with dyspnea and pleuritic chest pain for 6 days.

DIAGNOSIS

Case 1: Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography that same afternoon showed multiple bilateral segmental and subsegmental emboli as well as several small pulmonary infarcts. Case 2: The patient's D-dimer was elevated at 1148 ng/mL. His physician ordered a computed tomographic pulmonary angiography, performed that evening, which showed segmental and subsegmental PE.

INTERVENTIONS

Both patients were contacted by their respective physicians shortly after their diagnoses and, in shared decision-making, opted for treatment at home with 5 days of enoxaparin followed by dabigatran.

OUTCOMES

Neither patient developed recurrence nor complications in the subsequent 3 months.

LESSONS

These cases, stratified as low risk using the American College of Chest Physicians criteria and the PE Severity Index, are among the first in the literature to illustrate comprehensive primary care-based outpatient PE management. Care was provided within an integrated delivery system with ready, timely access to laboratory, advanced radiology, and allied health services. This report sets the stage for investigating the public health implications of comprehensive primary care-based PE management, including cost-savings as well as enhanced patient follow-up and patient satisfaction.

American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), occurs in ∼1 to 2 individuals per 1000 each year, corresponding to ∼300 000 to 600 000 events in the United States annually.

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about treatment of VTE.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 28 recommendations for the initial management of VTE, primary treatment, secondary prevention, and treatment of recurrent VTE events.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range of 2.0 to 3.0 over a lower INR range for patients with VTE who use a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) for secondary prevention, and use of indefinite anticoagulation for patients with recurrent unprovoked VTE. Conditional recommendations include the preference for home treatment over hospital-based treatment for uncomplicated DVT and PE at low risk for complications and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.

Managing acute pulmonary embolism in primary care in a patient declining emergency department transfer: a case report

Background

For patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed in the primary care setting, transfer to a higher level of care, like the emergency department, has long been the convention. Evidence is growing that outpatient management, that is, care without hospitalization, is safe, effective, and feasible for selected low-risk patients with acute PE. Whether outpatient care can be provided entirely in the primary care setting has not been well-studied. We report a case of outpatient management of a low-risk patient with acute PE without emergency department transfer.

Case summary

A 74-year-old woman with a history of recent surgery and immobilization presented to a primary care physician with 10 days of mild, non-exertional pleuritic chest pain. Her D-dimer concentration was elevated. Computed tomography pulmonary angiography identified a lobar embolus without right ventricular dysfunction. She declined emergency department transfer but was classified as low risk (class II) on the PE Severity Index and met the criteria of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) for outpatient care. Her physician provided comprehensive clinic-based PE management, discharging her to home with education, anticoagulation, and close follow-up. She completed her 3-month treatment course without complication.

Discussion

This case describes patient-centred, comprehensive, outpatient PE management in the primary care setting for a woman meeting explicit ESC outpatient criteria. This case illustrates the elements of care that clinics can put in place to facilitate PE management without having to transfer eligible low-risk patients to a higher level of care.

Survival and quality of life after early discharge in low-risk pulmonary embolism

Introduction

Early discharge of patients with acute low-risk pulmonary embolism requires validation by prospective trials with clinical and quality-of-life outcomes.

Methods

The multinational Home Treatment of Patients with Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism with the Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor Rivaroxaban (HoT-PE) single-arm management trial investigated early discharge followed by ambulatory treatment with rivaroxaban. The study was stopped for efficacy after the positive results of the predefined interim analysis at 50% of the planned population. The present analysis includes the entire trial population (576 patients). In addition to 3-month recurrence (primary outcome) and 1-year overall mortality, we analysed self-reported disease-specific (Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire) and generic (five-level five-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L) scale) quality of life as well as treatment satisfaction (Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS)) after pulmonary embolism.

Results

The primary efficacy outcome occurred in three (0.5%, one-sided upper 95% CI 1.3%) patients. The 1-year mortality was 2.4%. The mean±sd PEmb-QoL decreased from 28.9±20.6% at 3 weeks to 19.9±15.4% at 3 months, a mean change (improvement) of −9.1% (p<0.0001). Improvement was consistent across all PEmb-QoL dimensions. The EQ-5D-5L was 0.89±0.12 at 3 weeks after enrolment and improved to 0.91±0.12 at 3 months (p<0.0001). Female sex and cardiopulmonary disease were associated with poorer disease-specific and generic quality of life; older age was associated with faster worsening of generic quality of life. The ACTS burden score improved from 40.5±6.6 points at 3 weeks to 42.5±5.9 points at 3 months (p<0.0001).

Conclusions

Our results further support early discharge and ambulatory oral anticoagulation for selected patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism. Targeted strategies may be necessary to further improve quality of life in specific patient subgroups.

Hospitalization Is Less Common in Ambulatory Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosed Before Emergency Department Referral Than After Arrival

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) may undergo diagnostic pulmonary imaging as an outpatient before referral to the ED for definitive management. This population has not been well characterized.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included ambulatory adults with acute objectively confirmed PE across 21 EDs in an integrated health care system from January 1, 2013, through April 30, 2015. We excluded patients arriving by ambulance. We compared outpatients with diagnostic pulmonary imaging in the 12 hours prior to ED arrival (the clinic-based cohort) with those receiving imaging for PE only after ED arrival. We reported adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for hospitalization, adjusted for race, presyncope or syncope, proximal clot location, and PE Severity Index class.

RESULTS

Among 2,352 eligible ED patients with acute PE, 344 (14.6%) had a clinic-based diagnosis. This cohort had lower PE Severity Index classification and were less likely to be hospitalized than their counterparts with an ED-based diagnosis: 80.8% vs. 92.0% (p < 0.0001). The inverse association with hospitalization persisted after adjusting for the above patient characteristics with aOR of 0.36 (95% CI = 0.26 to 0.50).

CONCLUSION

In the study setting, ambulatory outpatients with acute PE are commonly diagnosed before ED arrival. A clinic-based diagnosis of PE identifies ED patients less likely to be hospitalized. Research is needed to identify which patients with a clinic-based PE diagnosis may not require transfer to the ED before home discharge.

Home treatment of venous thromboembolism disease

Despite the potential benefits of outpatient care, most patients with pulmonary embolisms are treated in hospitals for fear of possible adverse events. However, there is a wealth of scientific evidence from studies covering more than 4000 outpatients, which has led the current clinical practice guidelines to recommend early discharge or outpatient treatment when a low risk of death or complications has been confirmed, when there are no comorbidities or aggravating processes present to warrant hospitalisation and when appropriate monitoring and treatment are observed. This approach minimises the complications that can arise in hospitals and represents considerable cost savings. When selecting these patients, the use of prognostic tools such as the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), its simplified version (sPESI) and the Hestia Criteria are of paramount importance. Using these tools, the short-term outcomes (30-90days) show low mortality (in general <3%) and a low incidence of other complications (rate of recurrence and major bleeding <2%). Based on the available evidence, outpatient treatment can be considered the most appropriate strategy at this time for most hemodynamically stable patients with pulmonary embolisms.

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

METHODS

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

DISCUSSION

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

Reducing the hospital burden associated with the treatment of pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most feared clinical presentation of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients with PE have traditionally been treated in hospital; however, many are at low risk of adverse outcomes and current guidelines suggest outpatient treatment as an option. Outpatient treatment of PE offers several advantages, including reduced risk of hospital-acquired conditions and potential cost savings. Despite this, patients with low-risk PE are still frequently hospitalized for treatment. This narrative review summarizes current guideline recommendations for the identification of patients with low-risk PE who are potentially suitable for outpatient treatment, using prognostic assessment tools (e.g. the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and simplified PESI) and clinical exclusion criteria (e.g. Hestia criteria) alone or in combination with additional cardiac assessments. Treatment options are discussed along with recommendations for the follow-up of patients managed in the non-hospital environment. The available data on outpatient treatment of PE are summarized, including details on patient selection, anticoagulant choice, and short-term outcomes in each study. Accumulating evidence suggests that outcomes in patients with low-risk PE treated as outpatients are at least as good as, if not better than, those of patients treated in the hospital. With mounting pressures on health care systems worldwide, increasing the proportion of patients with PE treated as outpatients has the potential to reduce health care burdens associated with VTE.