Comparison of two methods for selection of out of hospital treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Prediction of mortality in acute pulmonary embolism in cancer-associated thrombosis (MAUPE-C): derivation and validation of a multivariable model

Optimal risk stratification of patients with cancer and pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unclear. We constructed a clinical prediction rule (CPR) named 'MAUPE-C' to identify patients with low 30 days mortality. The study retrospectively developed and internally validated a CPR for 30 days mortality in a cohort of patients with cancer and PE (both suspected and unsuspected). Candidate variables were chosen based on the EPIPHANY study, which categorized patients into 3 groups based on symptoms, signs, suspicion and patient setting at PE diagnosis. The performance of 'MAUPE-C' was compared to RIETE and sPESI scores. Univariate analysis confirmed that the presence of symptoms, signs, suspicion and inpatient diagnosis were associated with 30 days mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis led to the exclusion of symptoms as predictive variable. 'MAUPE-C' was developed by assigning weights to risk factors related to the β coefficient, yielding a score range of 0 to 4.5. After receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, a cutoff point was established at ≤ 1. Prognostic accuracy was good with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82), outperforming RIETE and sPESI scores in this cohort (AUC of 0.64 [95% CI 0.57-0.71] and 0.57 [95% CI 0.49-0.65], respectively). Forty-five per cent of patients were classified as low risk and experienced a 2.79% 30 days mortality. MAUPE-C has good prognostic accuracy in identifying patients at low risk of 30 days mortality. This CPR could help physicians select patients for early discharge.

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.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people each year. For selected low-risk patients with acute PE, outpatient treatment might provide several advantages over traditional inpatient treatment, such as reduction of hospitalisations, substantial cost savings, and improvements in health-related quality of life. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of outpatient versus inpatient treatment of adults (aged 18 years and over) diagnosed with low-risk acute PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were short- and long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were bleeding, adverse effects, recurrence of PE, and patient satisfaction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update. We included a total of two RCTs involving 453 participants. Both trials discharged participants randomised to the outpatient group within 36 hours of initial triage, and both followed participants for 90 days. One study compared the same treatment regimens in both outpatient and inpatient groups, and the other study used different treatment regimens. There was no clear difference in treatment effect for the outcomes of mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.98; 2 studies, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58; 2 studies, 451 participants; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.14; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.79; 1 study, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 2 studies, 444 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the CIs were wide and included treatment effects in both directions, the sample sizes and numbers of events were small, and it was not possible to determine the effect of missing data or the presence of publication bias. The included studies did not assess PE-related mortality or adverse effects, such as haemodynamic instability, or adherence to treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, only low-certainty evidence is available from two published randomised controlled trials on outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE. The studies did not provide evidence of any clear difference between the interventions in overall mortality, bleeding, or recurrence of PE.

Can right ventricular assessments improve triaging of low risk pulmonary embolism?

OBJECTIVES

Identifying right ventricle (RV) abnormalities is important to stratifying pulmonary embolism (PE) severity. Disposition decisions are influenced by concerns about early deterioration. Triaging strategies, like the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI), do not include RV assessments as predictors or early deterioration as outcome(s). We aimed to (1) determine if RV assessment variables add prognostic accuracy for 5-day clinical deterioration in patients classified low risk by sPESI, and (2) determine the prognostic importance of RV assessments compared to other variables and to each other.

METHODS

We identified low risk sPESI patients (sPESI = 0) from a prospective PE registry. From a large field of candidate variables, we developed, and compared prognostic accuracy of, full and reduced random forest models (with and without RV assessment variables, respectively) on a validation database. We reported variable importance plots from full random forest and provided odds ratios for statistical inference of importance from multivariable logistic regression. Outcomes were death, cardiac arrest, hypotension, dysrhythmia, or respiratory failure within 5 days of PE.

RESULTS

Of 1736 patients, 610 (35.1%) were low risk by sPESI and 72 (11.8%) experienced early deterioration. Of the 610, RV abnormality was present in 157 (25.7%) by CT, 121 (19.8%) by echocardiography, 132 (21.6%) by natriuretic peptide, and 107 (17.5%) by troponin. For deterioration, the receiver operating characteristics for full and reduced random forest prognostic models were 0.80 (0.77-0.82) and 0.71 (0.68-0.73), respectively. RV assessments were the top four in the variable importance plot for the random forest model. Echocardiography and CT significantly increased predicted probability of 5-day clinical deterioration by the multivariable logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

A PE triaging strategy with RV imaging assessments had superior prognostic performance at classifying low risk for 5-day clinical deterioration versus one without.

Prognostic Performance of Hestia Criteria in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous studies have suggested that Hestia criteria could effectively identifying patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who were at low risk of mortality for outpatient treatment or early discharge. But the performance of Hestia criteria in stratifying patients at different risk class is still unknown. We sought to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic impact of Hestia criteria for PE. The literatures search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE from 1 August 2011 to 31 October 2021. Finally, Eight studies with 4110 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, the pool percentage of patients classified as low-risk group and high-risk group were 41.4%% and 58.6% respectively, and the all-course mortality rates of each group were 2.3% and 10.6%, respectively. The pooled rate of PE-related composite adverse outcomes in high-risk group was increasingly higher than in low-risk group (15.7% vs 4.4%). High risk group was also markedly associated with overall mortality (OR: 7.21, 95%CI: 4.96-10.46, p < 0.00001), and PE-related adverse outcomes (OR:5.38, 95% CI:3.95-7.32, p < 0.00001). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR of Hestia criteria for overall mortality were 0.90 (95% CI:0.83-0.94), 0.43 (95% CI:0.31-0.55), 1.6 (95% CI:1.3-1.9), 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15-0.35), respectively. The area under SROC curve (AUC) was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84). The result of our meta-analysis indicate that Hestia criteria can effectively identify PE patients at low risk of poor prognosis with high sensitivity and NPV, but its prognostic role in patients with higher risk class still need to be verified.

Current interventional therapies in acute pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The management of PE is currently evolving given the development of new technologies and team-based approaches. This document will focus on risk stratification of PEs, review of the current interventional therapies, the role of clinical endpoints to assess the effectiveness of different interventional therapies, and the role for mechanical circulatory support in the complex management of this disease.

Venous thromboembolism: Recent advancement and future perspective

Clinicians have been more and more often encountering patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), including pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis, leading to the increased importance of VTE in daily clinical practice. VTE is becoming a common issue in Asian countries including Japan. The management strategies of VTE have changed dramatically in the past decade including the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). In addition, there have been several landmark clinical trials assessing acute treatment strategies including thrombolysis and inferior vena cava (IVC) filter. The current VTE guidelines do not recommend the routine use of thrombolysis or IVC filters based on recent evidence; Nevertheless, the prevalence of thrombolysis and IVC filter use in Japan was strikingly high. The novel profiles of DOACs with rapid onset of action and potential benefit of a lower risk for bleeding compared with vitamin K antagonist could make home treatment feasible and is safer even with extended anticoagulation therapy. One of the most clinically relevant issues for VTE treatment is optimal duration of anticoagulation for the secondary prevention of VTE. Considering recent evidence, optimal duration of anticoagulation should be determined based on the risk for recurrence as well as the risk for bleeding in an individual patient. Despite the recent advances for VTE management, there are still a number of uncertain issues that challenge clinicians in daily clinical practice, such as cancer-associated VTE and minor VTE including subsegmental pulmonary embolism and distal deep vein thrombosis, warranting future research. Several clinical trials are now ongoing for these issues, globally as well as in Japan. The current review is aimed to overview the recent advances in VTE management, describe the current status including some domestic issues in Japan, and discuss the future perspective of VTE.

Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm.

CONCLUSIONS

For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.

Risk Stratification in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: The Latest Algorithms

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common clinical entity, which most clinicians will encounter. Appropriate risk stratification of patients is key to identify those who may benefit from reperfusion therapy. The first step in risk assessment should be the identification of hemodynamic instability and, if present, urgent patient consideration for systemic thrombolytics. In the absence of shock, there is a plethora of imaging studies, biochemical markers, and clinical scores that can be used to further assess the patients' short-term mortality risk. Integrated prediction models incorporate more information toward an individualized and precise mortality prediction. Additionally, bleeding risk scores should be utilized prior to initiation of anticoagulation and/or reperfusion therapy administration. Here, we review the latest algorithms for a comprehensive risk stratification of the patient with acute PE.

Comparison of Different Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism and Active Cancer

OBJECTIVE

 This article aimed to validate and compare the prognostic performance of generic scores (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and Hestia) and cancer-specific pulmonary embolism (PE)/venous thromboembolism (VTE) scales (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica [RIETE], POMPE-C, and modified Ottawa) in PE patients with active cancer.

METHODS

 A retrospective study was conducted among 460 patients with PE and active cancer. The primary outcome was 30-day overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day PE-related death and overall adverse outcomes. The prognostic accuracy of clinical scores was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

 Within 30 days, 18.0% of patients died, 2.0% suffered major bleeding, and 0.2% presented recurrence of VTE. All scales showed a high area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting 30-day overall mortality except modified Ottawa (0.74 [0.70-0.78] for PESI, Hestia, and RIETE; 0.78 (0.74-0.81) for POMPE-C; 0.64 (0.59-0.68) for modified Ottawa]. PESI divided the least patients (9.1%) into low risk, followed by modified Ottawa (17.0%). Hestia stratified the most patients (65.4%) as low risk. But overall mortality of low-risk patients based on these three scales is high (>5%). RIETE and POMPE-C both classified 30.9% of patients as low risk, and low-risk patients stratified by these two scales presented a low overall mortality (1.4 and 3.5%). Similar predictive performance was found for 30-day PE-related death and overall adverse outcomes in these scores.

CONCLUSION

 Cancer-specific PE prognostic scores (RIETE and POMPE-C) performed better than generic scales (PESI and Hestia) and a cancer-specific VTE prognostic scale (modified Ottawa) in identifying low-risk PE patients with active cancer who may be suitable for outpatient treatment.

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism

Over the past decade there has been an increasing trend to manage many conditions traditionally treated during a hospital admission as outpatients. Evidence is increasing to support this approach in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). In this article, we review the current status of outpatient management of confirmed PE and present a pragmatic approach for clinical healthcare settings.

Outpatient management of pulmonary embolism should be considered in all eligible patients to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions and improve quality of carehttps://bit.ly/3mo5TX7

Opinion and practice survey about the use of prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism

INTRODUCTION

Methods for prognosis assessment and patient management in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are much debated among physicians. We conducted an online survey to determine physician's attitudes and barriers towards the use of prognostic models when treating patients with acute PE.

METHOD

Physicians members of the French and the European scientific societies for emergency medicine or of a French thrombosis research network were reached by their respective scientific societies and invited to participate via email. The questionnaire was a mixture of close-ended with yes-no or multiple-choice options and a small number of open-ended questions.

RESULTS

The survey included 461 respondents. The most commonly used prognostic tools were clinical judgment (36%) and prognostic models (29.5%). Prognostic models were used by 57% of respondents in more than half of all cases and prognostic indicators by 62% in addition to prognostic models. Affiliation group and type of hospital emerged as independent predictors for choosing prognostic models. Many (52%) reported lack of familiarity with the models and reported clinical judgment (60%) or hospital checklists (73%) as being as good as or better than prognostic models. The highest acceptable 30-day mortality rate limit for early discharge or outpatient management was deemed to be 1%, but few patients are discharged early or completely managed on an outpatient basis.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides new information for implementing knowledge translation strategies to improve prognostic risk assessment for acute PE patients, and highlights the need for considering the use of clinical judgment and hospital checklists in future clinical research.

Study protocol for a multicentre implementation trial of monotherapy anticoagulation to expedite home treatment of patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

In the USA, many emergency departments (EDs) have established protocols to treat patients with newly diagnosed deep vein thrombosis (DVT) as outpatients. Similar treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) has been proposed, but no large-scale study has been published to evaluate a comprehensive, integrated protocol that employs monotherapy anticoagulation to treat patients diagnosed with DVT and PE in the ED.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes the implementation of the Monotherapy Anticoagulation To expedite Home treatment of Venous ThromboEmbolism (MATH-VTE) study at 33 hospitals in the USA. The study was designed and executed to meet the requirements for the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies guideline. The study was funded by investigator-initiated awards from industry, with Indiana University as the sponsor. The study principal investigator and study associates travelled to each site to provide on-site training. The protocol identically screens patients with both DVT or PE to determine low risk of death using either the modified Hestia criteria or physician judgement plus a negative result from the simplified PE severity index. Patients must be discharged from the ED within 24 hours of triage and treated with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. Overall effectiveness is based upon the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of recurrent VTE and bleeding requiring hospitalisation respectively. Target enrolment of 1300 patients was estimated with efficacy success defined as the upper limit of the 95% CI for the 30-day frequency of VTE recurrence below 2.0%. Thirty-three hospitals in 17 states were initiated in 2016-2017.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All sites had Institutional Review Board approval. We anticipate completion of enrolment in June 2020; study data will be available after peer-reviewed publication. MATH-VTE will provide information from a large multicentre sample of US patients about the efficacy and safety of home treatment of VTE with monotherapy anticoagulation.

Pulmonary embolism: update on management and controversies

Pulmonary embolism is a common and potentially fatal cardiovascular disorder that must be promptly diagnosed and treated. The diagnosis, risk assessment, and management of pulmonary embolism have evolved with a better understanding of efficient use of diagnostic and therapeutic options. The use of either clinical probability adjusted or age adjusted D-dimer interpretation has led to a reduction in diagnostic imaging to exclude pulmonary embolism. Direct oral anticoagulation therapies are safe, effective, and convenient treatments for most patients with acute venous thromboembolism, with a lower risk of bleeding than vitamin K antagonists. These oral therapeutic options have opened up opportunities for safe outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in selected patients. Recent clinical trials exploring the use of systemic thrombolysis in intermediate to high risk pulmonary embolism suggest that this therapy should be reserved for patients with evidence of hemodynamic compromise. The role of low dose systemic or catheter directed thrombolysis in other patient subgroups is uncertain. After a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism, all patients should be assessed for risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism to guide duration of anticoagulation. Patients with a venous thromboembolism associated with a strong, transient, provoking risk factor can safely discontinue anticoagulation after three months of treatment. Patients with an ongoing strong risk factor, such as cancer, or unprovoked events are at increased risk of recurrent events and should be considered for extended treatment. The use of a risk prediction score can help to identify patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can benefit from extended duration therapy. Despite major advances in the management of pulmonary embolism, up to half of patients report chronic functional limitations. Such patients should be screened for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, but only a small proportion will have this as the explanation of their symptoms. In the remaining patients, future studies are needed to understand the pathophysiology and explore interventions to improve quality of life.

Risk Stratification of Pulmonary Embolism

Given the broad treatment options, risk stratification of pulmonary embolism is a highly desirable component of management. The ideal tool identifies patients at risk of death from the original or recurrent pulmonary embolism. Using all-cause death in the first 30-days after pulmonary embolism diagnosis as a surrogate, clinical parameters, biomarkers, and radiologic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction and strain are predictive. However, no study has demonstrated improved mortality rates after implementation of a risk stratification strategy to guide treatment. Further research should use better methodology to study prognosis and test new management strategies in patients at high risk for death.

Risk adapted management of acute pulmonary embolism in women

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third most common cause of cardiovascular death worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prompt risk stratification of patients with acute PE. Prognostication may accurately identify: 1) hemodynamically unstable (i.e., high-risk) patients with PE, who might benefit from recanalization therapies (i.e., thrombolysis, embolectomy); 2) intermediate- to high-risk patients with PE, who might require monitoring and recanalization procedures if early hemodynamic decompensation occurs; and 3) low-risk patients with PE, who might benefit from an abbreviated hospital stay or outpatient therapy. A fourth group of patients should not undergo escalated or home therapy (intermediate- to low-risk PE). Studies of patients with proven acute PE have shown conflicting data regarding the association between sex and presentation and short-term clinical course in patients with acute symptomatic PE. Therefore, at this time sex differences should not dictate different approaches to prognostication and management.

Interventional Therapies in Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) historically included anticoagulation and systemic thrombolytic therapy. More recently, catheter guided interventions provided promise of mitigating bleeding risks usually associated with systemic thrombolysis in intermediate to high risk PE patients. Catheter based interventions can broadly be divided into catheter directed thrombolysis and catheter based embolectomy. Both modalities are currently undergoing active research and each has their respective risks and benefits. The decision to administer these advanced therapies for acute PE can be challenging but can be accomplished via a multi-disciplinary PE response team.

Interventional Therapies for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Current Status and Principles for the Development of Novel Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The technological landscape for management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE is rapidly evolving. Two interventional devices using pharmacomechanical means to recanalize the pulmonary arteries have recently been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing, and several others are in various stages of development. The purpose of this document is to clarify the current state of endovascular interventional therapy for acute PE and to provide considerations for evidence development for new devices that will define which patients with PE would derive the greatest net benefit from their use in various clinical settings. First, definitions and limitations of commonly used risk stratification tools for PE are reviewed. An adjudication of risks and benefits of available interventional therapies for PE follows. Next, considerations for optimal future evidence development in this field are presented in the context of the current US regulatory framework. Finally, the document concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons of the rapidly expanding PE response team model of care delivery.

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.

Accuracy and Interobserver Reliability of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Versus the Hestia Criteria for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess and compare the accuracy and interobserver reliability of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and the Hestia criteria for predicting short-term mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive eligible adults with PE diagnosed in the emergency department (ED) at a large, tertiary, academic medical center in the era January 1, 2015, to December 30, 2017. We assessed and compared sPESI and Hestia criteria prognostic accuracy for 30-day all-cause mortality after PE diagnosis and their interobserver reliability for classifying patients as low risk or high risk. Two clinician investigators scored both prediction tools during the ED evaluation. We used the kappa statistic to test for agreement.

RESULTS

The 488-patient cohort had a mean (±SD) age of 69.0 (±17.1) years and an approximately even sex distribution. The investigators classified one-quarter of patients as low risk using the sPESI and Hestia criteria (28% vs. 27%, respectively). During the 30-day follow-up, 31 of the 488 (6.4%) patients died. Patients classified as low risk according to the sPESI and the Hestia criteria had a similar 30-day mortality (sPESI 0.7% [1/135], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0%-4.0%; Hestia 2.3% [3/132], 95% CI = 0.5%-6.5%). The two observers had good agreement (κ = 0.80) for the Hestia criteria and very good agreement (κ = 0.97) for the sPESI.

CONCLUSION

The sPESI and the Hestia criteria had similar risk classification determination and prognostic accuracy for 30-day mortality after PE. However, the succinct and more objective sPESI had higher interobserver reliability than the Hestia criteria.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people each year. For selected low-risk patients with acute PE, outpatient treatment might provide several advantages over traditional inpatient treatment, such as reduction of hospitalisations, substantial cost savings, and improvements in health-related quality of life. This is an update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; adverse events such as haemodynamic instability; recurrence of PE; and patients' satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 26 March 2018. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment of adults (aged 18 years and over) diagnosed with low-risk acute PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analysed data. We calculated effect estimates using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

One new study was identified for this 2018 update, bringing the total number of included studies to two and the total number of participants to 451. Both trials discharged patients randomised to the outpatient group within 36 hours of initial triage and both followed participants for 90 days. One study compared the same treatment regimens in both outpatient and inpatient groups, and the other study used different treatment regimes. There was no clear difference in treatment effect for the outcomes of short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49; low-quality evidence), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99, low-quality evidence), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30; low-quality evidence) and at 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.14, P = 0.20; low-quality evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.79; P = 0.96, low-quality evidence), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51, low-quality evidence), and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04, P = 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the CIs were wide and included treatment effects in both directions, the sample sizes and numbers of events were small, and because the effect of missing data and the absence of publication bias could not be verified. PE-related mortality, and adverse effects such as haemodynamic instability and compliance, were not assessed by the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, only low-quality evidence is available from two published randomised controlled trials on outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE. The studies did not provide evidence of any clear difference between the interventions in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE.

External validation of three risk stratification rules in patients presenting with pulmonary embolism and cancer

Numerous risk stratification rules exist to predict post-pulmonary embolism (PE) mortality; however, few were designed for use in cancer patients. In the EPIPHANY registry, adapted versions of common rules (the Hestia criteria, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI], and simplified PESI [sPESI]) displayed high sensitivity for prognosticating mortality in PE patients with cancer. These adapted rules have yet to be externally validated. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the performance of an adapted Hestia criteria, PESI, and sPESI for predicting 30-day post-PE mortality in patients with cancer. We identified consecutive, adults presenting with objectively confirmed PE and cancer to our institution (November 2010 to January 2014). The proportion of patients categorized as low or high risk by these three risk stratification rules was calculated, and each rule's accuracy for predicting 30-day all-cause mortality was determined. Of the 124 patients with PE and active cancer identified, 25 (20%) experienced mortality at 30 days. The adapted Hestia criteria categorized 23 (19%) patients as low risk, while exhibiting a sensitivity of 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 68-97%), a negative predictive value NPV of 87% (95% CI = 65-97%), and a specificity of 20% (95% CI = 13-30%). A total of 38 (31%) and 30 (24%) patients were low risk by the adapted PESI and sPESI, with both displaying sensitivities of 92% and NPVs > 93%. Specificities were 36% (95% CI = 27-47%) and 28% (95% CI = 20-38%) for PESI and sPESI. In our external validation, the adapted Hestia, PESI, and sPESI demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for 30-day PE mortality in patients with cancer. Larger, prospective trials are needed to optimize strategies for risk stratification in this population.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for pulmonary embolism: who, where and for how long?

INTRODUCTION

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a relatively common cardiopulmonary emergency that is a major cause of hospitalization and morbidity and is the primary cause of mortality associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). During the last decade, one of the biggest changes in the management of PE has been the approval of four non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) for the treatment of PE and deep vein thrombosis and secondary prevention of VTE. Areas covered: This article reviews the evolving management of PE in the NOAC era and addresses three fundamental questions: who should receive NOACs over conventional heparin/vitamin K antagonist regimens for the treatment of acute PE; should patients be treated as inpatients or outpatients; and how long should patients be treated to reduce the risk of recurrence? Expert commentary: The management of PE is changing. NOACs provide new anticoagulant treatment options for patients with PE, based on Phase III clinical study results. The consistent efficacy and safety profile of NOACs across many PE patient subgroups, including the elderly, fragile patients, those with active cancer and high-risk (right ventricular dysfunction) patients, suggests NOAC use will increase among these patients.

The diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in asian patients

Although the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Asian populations is lower than in Western countries, the overall burden of VTE in Asia has been considerably underestimated. Factors that may explain the lower prevalence of VTE in Asian populations relative to Western populations include the limited availability of epidemiological data in Asia, ethnic differences in the genetic predisposition to VTE, underdiagnoses, low awareness toward thrombotic disease, and possibly less symptomatic VTE in Asian patients. The clinical assessment, diagnostic testing, and therapeutic considerations for VTE are, in general, the same in Asian populations as they are in Western populations. The management of VTE is based upon balancing the treatment benefits against the risk of bleeding. This is an especially important consideration for Asian populations because of increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage with vitamin K antagonists. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants have shown advantages over current treatment modalities with respect to bleeding outcomes in major phase 3 clinical trials, including in Asian populations. Although anticoagulant therapy has been shown to reduce the risk of postoperative VTE in Western populations, VTE prophylaxis is not administered routinely in Asian countries. Despite advances in the management of VTE, data in Asian populations on the incidence, prevalence, recurrence, risk factors, and management of bleeding complications are limited and there is need for increased awareness. To that end, this review summarizes the available data on the epidemiology, risk stratification, diagnosis, and treatment considerations in the management of VTE in Asia.

Update on the risk stratification of acute symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism

Early mortality in patients with pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) varies from 2% in normotensive patients to 30% in patients with cardiogenic shock. The current risk stratification for symptomatic PTE includes 4 patient groups, and the recommended therapeutic strategies are based on this stratification. Patients who have haemodynamic instability are considered at high risk. Fibrinolytic treatment is recommended for these patients. In normotensive patients, risk stratification helps differentiate between those of low risk, intermediate-low risk and intermediate-high risk. There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefit of intensive monitoring and fibrinolytic treatment in patients with intermediate-high risk. For low-risk patients, standard anticoagulation is indicated. Early discharge with outpatient management may be considered, although its benefit has still not been firmly established.

Cardiovascular Conditions in the Observation Unit: Beyond Chest Pain

The first emergency department observation units (EDOUs) focused on chest pain and potential acute coronary syndromes. However, most EDOUs now cover multiple other conditions that lend themselves to protocolized, aggressive diagnostic and therapeutic regimens. In this article, the authors discuss the management of 4 cardiovascular conditions that have been successfully deployed in EDOUs around the country.

Observation management of pulmonary embolism and agreement with claims-based and clinical risk stratification criteria in United States patients: a retrospective analysis

Background

Guidelines suggest observation stays are appropriate for pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low-risk for early mortality. We sought to assess agreement between United States (US) observation management of PE and claims-based and clinical risk stratification criteria.

Methods

Using US Premier data from 11/2012 to 3/2015, we identified adult observation stay patients with a primary diagnosis of PE, ≥1 PE diagnostic test claim and evidence of PE treatment. The proportion of patients at high-risk was assessed using the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) equation and high-risk characteristics (age > 80 years, heart failure, chronic lung disease, renal or liver disease, high-risk for bleeding, cancer or need for thrombolysis/embolectomy).

Results

We identified 1633 PE patients managed through an observation stay. Despite their observation status, IMPACT classified 46.4% as high-risk for early mortality and 33.3% had ≥1 high-risk characteristic. Co-morbid heart failure, renal or liver disease, high-risk for major bleeding, cancer and hemodynamic instability were low (each <4.5%), but 7.8% were >80 years-of-age and 19.4% had chronic lung disease.

Conclusion

Many PE patients selected for management in observation stay units appeared to have clinical characteristics suggestive of higher-risk for mortality based upon published claims-based and clinical risk stratification criteria.

Guidance for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

This guidance document focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Efficient, cost effective diagnosis of VTE is facilitated by combining medical history and physical examination with pre-test probability models, D dimer testing and selective use of confirmatory imaging. Clinical prediction rules, biomarkers and imaging can be used to tailor therapy to disease severity. Anticoagulation options for acute VTE include unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin, fondaparinux and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs are as effective as conventional therapy with LMWH and vitamin K antagonists. Thrombolytic therapy is reserved for massive pulmonary embolism (PE) or extensive deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Inferior vena cava filters are reserved for patients with acute VTE and contraindications to anticoagulation. Retrievable filters are strongly preferred. The possibility of thoracic outlet syndrome and May-Thurner syndrome should be considered in patients with subclavian/axillary and left common iliac vein DVT, respectively in absence of identifiable triggers. The optimal duration of therapy is dictated by the presence of modifiable thrombotic risk factors. Long term anticoagulation should be considered in patients with unprovoked VTE as well as persistent prothrombotic risk factors such as cancer. Short-term therapy is sufficient for most patients with VTE associated with transient situational triggers such as major surgery. Biomarkers such as D dimer and risk assessment models such the Vienna risk prediction model offer the potential to customize VTE therapy for the individual patient. Insufficient data exist to support the integration of bleeding risk models into duration of therapy planning.

Rivaroxaban versus Heparin Bridging to Warfarin Therapy: Impact on Hospital Length of Stay and Treatment Costs for Low-Risk Patients with Pulmonary Embolism

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospital treatment costs in low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) anticoagulated with rivaroxaban or heparin bridging to warfarin therapy.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of electronic health records and hospital billing records.

SETTING

Large, teaching hospital in the northeastern United States.

PATIENTS

One hundred ninety adults with objectively confirmed acute PE presenting to the emergency department between November 1, 2012, and May, 12, 2015, who were classified as low risk of early mortality and received anticoagulation with either rivaroxaban or heparin (i.e., unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) bridging to warfarin therapy were included in the analysis. Patients were identified as low risk by at least one of the following prediction rules: simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI; 115 patients), Hestia criteria (87 patients), or In-hospital Mortality for Pulmonary Embolism using Claims Data (IMPACT; 108 patients); these were not mutually exclusive, as patients could be classified as low risk by more than one risk stratification tool.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We divided low-risk patients identified by each prediction rule into two cohorts: those receiving rivaroxaban (allowing ≤ 2 days of prior heparin use) or heparin bridging to warfarin therapy. The primary end points for this study were LOS (number of days from the patient's arrival at our institution until discharge) and total hospital treatment costs (our institution's actual costs to provide treatment) for the index PE hospital encounter. Using multivariable generalized linear model regression (gamma-distributed error and log-link), we estimated differences in LOS and hospital costs (in 2015 U.S. dollars) between the two cohorts after covariate adjustment. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter adjusted LOS (range -2.1 to -4.3 days) and significantly lower index hospital costs (range -$3835 to -$7094) versus heparin bridging to warfarin, regardless of the prediction rule used to identify low-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Among low-risk PE patients identified by using sPESI, Hestia or IMPACT, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter LOS and lower hospital treatment costs versus heparin bridging to warfarin.

External Validation of the Hestia Criteria for Identifying Acute Pulmonary Embolism Patients at Low Risk of Early Mortality

INTRODUCTION

There are limited studies evaluating the ability of the Hestia criteria to accurately identify patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) at low risk of early mortality. We sought to externally validate the Hestia criteria for predicting in-hospital and 30-day post-PE mortality.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified consecutive, adult, objectively confirmed PE patients presenting to the emergency department at our institution from November 21, 2010, to January 31, 2014. We ascertained the total number of Hestia criteria met for each patient, calculated the proportion of patients categorized as low risk (ie, no Hestia criteria met), and determined the accuracy of the Hestia criteria for predicting in-hospital and 30-day all-cause mortality. Mortality was determined through Social Security Death Index searches.

RESULTS

A total of 577 patients with PE were included, of which 19 (3.3%) and 35 (6.6%) died in hospital or within 30 days of presentation. Both in-hospital and 30-day case fatality rates rose as the number of Hestia criteria increased. One-hundred forty nine (25.8%) patients were classified as low risk for early mortality, and none of these patients died within 30 days (negative predictive values of 100%). The Hestia criteria had excellent sensitivity (100%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 79.1%-100% and 100%, 95% CI = 87.7%-100%) for predicting in-hospital and 30-day mortality but low specificity (<27.5% for both). The c-statistics for in-hospital and 30-day mortality were 83.5%, 95% CI = 77.1%-89.9% and 78.5%, 95% CI = 71.9%-85.1%. The predictive accuracy of the Hestia criteria remained acceptable in patients >80 years of age, with active cancer or chronic cardiopulmonary disease.

CONCLUSION

The Hestia criteria have an acceptable predictive accuracy to identify patients with PE at low risk for in-hospital or 30-day mortality.

Prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence for existing prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and determine how valid and useful they are for predicting patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library from inception to July 2014, and sources of grey literature.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies aiming at constructing, validating, updating or studying the impact of prognostic models to predict all-cause death, PE-related death or venous thromboembolic events up to a 3-month follow-up in patients with an acute symptomatic PE.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics and study quality using prognostic criteria. Studies were selected and data extracted by 2 reviewers.

DATA ANALYSIS

Summary estimates (95% CI) for proportion of risk groups and event rates within risk groups, and accuracy.

RESULTS

We included 71 studies (44,298 patients). Among them, 17 were model construction studies specific to PE prognosis. The most validated models were the PE Severity Index (PESI) and its simplified version (sPESI). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 2.3% (1.7% to 2.9%) in the low-risk group and 11.4% (9.9% to 13.1%) in the high-risk group for PESI (9 studies), and 1.5% (0.9% to 2.5%) in the low-risk group and 10.7% (8.8% to12.9%) in the high-risk group for sPESI (11 studies). PESI has proved clinically useful in an impact study. Shifting the cut-off or using novel and updated models specifically developed for normotensive PE improves the ability for identifying patients at lower risk for early death or adverse outcome (0.5-1%) and those at higher risk (up to 20-29% of event rate).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence-based information about the validity and utility of the existing prognostic models in acute PE that may be helpful for identifying patients at low risk. Novel models seem attractive for the high-risk normotensive PE but need to be externally validated then be assessed in impact studies.

External validation of prognostic rules for early post-pulmonary embolism mortality: assessment of a claims-based and three clinical-based approaches

Background

Studies show the In-hospital Mortality for Pulmonary embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) rule can accurately identify pulmonary embolism (PE) patients at low-risk of early mortality in a retrospective setting using only claims for the index admission. We sought to externally validate IMPACT, Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), simplified PESI (sPESI) and Hestia for predicting early mortality.

Methods

We identified consecutive adults admitted for objectively-confirmed PE between 10/21/2010 and 5/12/2015. Patients undergoing thrombolysis/embolectomy within 48 h were excluded. All-cause in-hospital and 30 day mortality (using available Social Security Death Index data through January 2014) were assessed and prognostic accuracies of IMPACT, PESI, sPESI and Hestia were determined.

Results

Twenty-one (2.6 %) of the 807 PE patients died before discharge. All rules classified 26.1–38.3 % of patients as low-risk for early mortality. Fatality among low-risk patients was 0 % (sPESI and Hestia), 0.4 % (IMPACT) and 0.6 % (PESI). IMPACT’s sensitivity was 95.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 74.1–99.8 %), and the sensitivities of clinical rules ranged from 91 (PESI)-100 % (sPESI and Hestia). Specificities of all rules ranged between 26.8 and 39.1 %. Of 573 consecutive patients in the 30 day mortality analysis, 33 (5.8 %) died. All rules classified 27.9–38.0 % of patients as low-risk, and fatality occurred in 0 (Hestia)-1.4 % (PESI) of low-risk patients. IMPACT’s sensitivity was 97.0 % (95%CI = 82.5–99.8 %), while sensitivities for clinical rules ranged from 91 (PESI)-100 % (Hestia). Specificities of rules ranged between 29.6 and 39.8 %.

Conclusion

In this analysis, IMPACT identified low-risk PE patients with similar accuracy as clinical rules. While not intended for prospective clinical decision-making, IMPACT appears useful for identification of low-risk PE patient in retrospective claims-based studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12959-016-0081-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND

We update recommendations on 12 topics that were in the 9th edition of these guidelines, and address 3 new topics.

METHODS

We generate strong (Grade 1) and weak (Grade 2) recommendations based on high- (Grade A), moderate- (Grade B), and low- (Grade C) quality evidence.

RESULTS

For VTE and no cancer, as long-term anticoagulant therapy, we suggest dabigatran (Grade 2B), rivaroxaban (Grade 2B), apixaban (Grade 2B), or edoxaban (Grade 2B) over vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy, and suggest VKA therapy over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH; Grade 2C). For VTE and cancer, we suggest LMWH over VKA (Grade 2B), dabigatran (Grade 2C), rivaroxaban (Grade 2C), apixaban (Grade 2C), or edoxaban (Grade 2C). We have not changed recommendations for who should stop anticoagulation at 3 months or receive extended therapy. For VTE treated with anticoagulants, we recommend against an inferior vena cava filter (Grade 1B). For DVT, we suggest not using compression stockings routinely to prevent PTS (Grade 2B). For subsegmental pulmonary embolism and no proximal DVT, we suggest clinical surveillance over anticoagulation with a low risk of recurrent VTE (Grade 2C), and anticoagulation over clinical surveillance with a high risk (Grade 2C). We suggest thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism with hypotension (Grade 2B), and systemic therapy over catheter-directed thrombolysis (Grade 2C). For recurrent VTE on a non-LMWH anticoagulant, we suggest LMWH (Grade 2C); for recurrent VTE on LMWH, we suggest increasing the LMWH dose (Grade 2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Of 54 recommendations included in the 30 statements, 20 were strong and none was based on high-quality evidence, highlighting the need for further research.

Outpatient treatment of low-risk venous thromboembolism with monotherapy oral anticoagulation: patient quality of life outcomes and clinician acceptance

BACKGROUND

Oral monotherapy anticoagulation has facilitated home treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in outpatients.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to measure efficacy, safety, as well as patient and physician perceptions produced by a protocol that selected VTE patients as low-risk patients by the Hestia criteria, and initiated home anticoagulation with an oral factor Xa antagonist.

METHODS

Patients were administered the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study Quality of life/Symptoms questionnaire [VEINEs QoL/Sym] and the physical component summary [PCS] from the Rand 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF36]). The primary outcomes were VTE recurrence and hemorrhage at 30 days. Secondary outcomes compared psychometric test scores between patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to those with pulmonary embolism (PE). Patient perceptions were abstracted from written comments and physician perceptions specific to PE outpatient treatment obtained from structured survey.

RESULTS

From April 2013 to September 2015, 253 patients were treated, including 67 with PE. Within 30 days, 2/253 patients had recurrent DVT and 2/253 had major hemorrhage; all four had DVT at enrollment. The initial PCS scores did not differ between DVT and PE patients (37.2±13.9 and 38.0±12.1, respectively) and both DVT and PE patients had similar improvement over the treatment period (42.2±12.9 and 43.4±12.7, respectively), consistent with prior literature. The most common adverse event was menorrhagia, present in 15% of women. Themes from patient-written responses reflected satisfaction with increased autonomy. Physicians' (N=116) before-to-after protocol comfort level with home treatment of PE increased 48% on visual analog scale.

CONCLUSION

Hestia-negative VTE patients treated with oral monotherapy at home had low rates of VTE recurrence and bleeding, as well as quality of life measurements similar to prior reports.

External validation of the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) multivariable prediction rule

OBJECTIVE

To validate the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) multivariable prediction rule using admission claims data.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective claims database analysis.

METHODS

This analysis was performed using Humana admission claims data from January 2007 to March 2014. We included adult patients admitted for their first PE during this period (International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition, Clinical Modification code of 415.1x in in the primary position or secondary position when accompanied by a primary code for a PE complication). The IMPACT rule, consisting of age plus 11 comorbidities, was used to estimate patients' probability of in-hospital mortality and classify risk. Low risk was defined as in-hospital mortality ≤ 1.5%. IMPACT was evaluated by evaluating prognostic test characteristic values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 23,858 patients admitted for PE were included, and 3.3% died in-hospital. The IMPACT prediction rule classified 2371 (9.9%) as low-risk; with a sensitivity of 97.6%, 95% CI: 96.1-98.5, specificity of 10.2%, 95% CI: 9.8-10.6, negative and positive predictive values of 99.2% (95% CI: 98.7-99.5) and 3.5% (95% CI: 3.3-3.8) and c-statistic of 0.70, 95% CI: 0.0.68-0.72, for in-hospital mortality. IMPACT classified 42.7% of patients < 65 years old as low-risk; with a sensitivity, specificity and c-statistic of 85.0%, 95% CI: 77.4-90.5, 43.3%, 95% CI: 42.0-44.7 and 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69-0.78, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The IMPACT prediction rule was valid when implemented in a database consisting largely of Medicare claims. Following further external validation and direct comparison to commonly used clinical prediction rules, IMPACT may become a valuable tool for payers and hospitals wishing to retrospectively assess whether their PE patients are being kept hospitalized for the optimal period of time.

Validation of the multivariable In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) prediction rule within an all-payer inpatient administrative claims database

OBJECTIVE

To validate the In-hospital Mortality for PulmonAry embolism using Claims daTa (IMPACT) prediction rule, in a database consisting only of inpatient claims.

DESIGN

Retrospective claims database analysis.

SETTING

The 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample.

PARTICIPANTS

Pulmonary embolism (PE) admissions were identified by an International Classification of Diseases, ninth edition (ICD-9) code either in the primary position or secondary position when accompanied by a primary code for a PE complication. The multivariable IMPACT rule, which includes age and 11 comorbidities, was used to estimate patients' probability of in-hospital mortality and classify them as low or higher risk (≤1.5% deemed low risk).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The rule's sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve statistic for predicting in-hospital mortality with accompanying 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 34,108 admissions for PE were included, with a 3.4% in-hospital case-fatality rate. IMPACT classified 11, 025 (32.3%) patients as low risk, and low risk patients had lower in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.17, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.21), shorter length of stay (-1.2 days, p<0.001) and lower total treatment costs (-$3074, p<0.001) than patients classified as higher risk. IMPACT had a sensitivity of 92.4%, 95% CI 90.7 to 93.8 and specificity of 33.2%, 95% CI 32.7 to 33.7 for classifying mortality risk. It had a high NPV (>99%), low PPV (4.6%) and an AUC of 0.74, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.76.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMPACT rule appeared valid when used in this all payer, inpatient only administrative claims database. Its high sensitivity and NPV suggest the probability of in-hospital death in those classified as low risk by IMPACT was minimal.

Immediate Discharge and Home Treatment With Rivaroxaban of Low-risk Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosed in Two U.S. Emergency Departments: A One-year Preplanned Analysis

Objectives

The study hypothesis was that a target‐specific anticoagulant would allow successful home treatment of selected patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosed in two urban emergency departments (EDs).

Methods

A protocol was established for treating low‐risk DVT or PE patients with rivaroxaban and clinic, follow‐up at both 2 to 5 weeks, and 3 to 6 months. Patients were determined to be low‐risk by using a modified version of the Hestia criteria, supplemented by additional criteria for patients with active cancer. Acceptable outcome rates were defined as venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence ≤ 2.1% or bleeding ≤ 9.4% during treatment. VTE recurrence required positive imaging of any VTE. The International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis definition of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was used.

Results

From March 2013 through April 2014, a total of 106 patients were treated. Seventy‐one (68%) had DVT, 30 (28%) had PE, and five (3%) had both, representing 51% of all DVTs and 27% of all PEs diagnosed in both EDs during the period of study. The 106 patients have been followed for a mean (±SD) of 389 (±111) days (range = 213 to 594 days). No patient had VTE recurrence, and no patient had a major or clinically relevant bleeding event while on therapy (none of the 106, 0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0% to 3.4%). However, three patients 2.8% (95% CI = 1% to 8%) had recurrent DVT after cessation of therapy.

Conclusions

Patients diagnosed with VTE and immediately discharged from the ED while treated with rivaroxaban had a low rate of VTE recurrence and bleeding.

Pulmonary embolism: whom to discharge and whom to thrombolyze?

Patients with pulmonary embolism can be divided in two groups according to their risk of death or major complication: a small group of high-risk patients defined by the presence of systemic hypotension or cardiogenic shock and a large group of normotensive patients. Among normotensive patients, further risk stratification, based on clinical grounds alone or on the combination of clinical data, biomarkers, and imaging tests, allows selection of low-risk patients and intermediate-risk patients. The safety of outpatient treatment for low-risk patients has been established mainly on the basis of retrospective and prospective cohorts using different selection tools. In most studies, about 50% of the patients have been safely treated at home. Although thrombolytic therapy has a favorable benefit to risk profile in patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism, the risk of major and especially intracranial bleeding outweighs the benefits in terms of hemodynamic decompensation in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.