The impact of a multi-specialty team for high risk pulmonary embolism on resident and fellow education

Bringing PERT to Pediatrics: Initial Experience and Outcomes of a Pediatric Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT)

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) streamline care of adults with life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Given rarity of pediatric PE, developing a clinical, educational, and research PERT paradigm is a novel and underused concept in pediatrics.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is a PERT feasible in pediatrics, and does it improve PE care?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A strategy-to-execution proposal to launch a pediatric PERT was developed for institutional buy-in. Key stakeholders collectively implemented the PERT. Data were collected for the 2-year pre-PERT and post-PERT eras, and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

PERT implementation took 12 months. Our PERT, led by hematology, is composed of pediatric experts in emergency medicine, critical care, interventional cardiology, anesthesiology, and interventional radiology. Data on 30 patients pre-PERT and 31 patients post-PERT were analyzed. Pre-PERT, 10% (3 of 30), 13% (4 of 30), 20% (6 of 30), and 57% (17 of 30), and post-PERT, 3% (1 of 31), 10% (3 of 31), 16% (5 of 31), and 71% (22 of 31) were categorized as high-risk, intermediate-low-risk, intermediate-high-risk, and low-risk PE, respectively. Post-PERT, there were 13 unique PERT activations. PERT was activated on all eligible patients with PE and, additionally, on 4 low-risk PEs. Time to echocardiogram was shorter post-PERT (4.7 vs 2 hours, P = .0147). Anticoagulation was ordered (90 vs 54 minutes, P = .003) and given sooner (154 vs 113 minutes, P = .049) post-PERT. There were no differences in time to reperfusion therapies (12 hours pre-PERT vs 8.7 hours post-PERT, P = .10). Five of 6 (83.3%) eligible (intermediate-high and high-risk) patients received reperfusion therapies in the post-PERT era compared to 3 of 8 (37.5%) eligible patients in the pre-PERT era (P = .0001). There were no differences in major bleeding, mortality, or length of stay in either era.

INTERPRETATION

The pediatric PERT paradigm was successfully created and adopted locally. Our PERT enhanced access to experts, facilitated timely advanced therapies, and held value for low-risk PE. The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and Children's Health System of Texas pediatric PERT may serve as a best practice model for streamlining care for pediatric PE.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams: Theory, Implementation, and Unanswered Questions

Pulmonary embolism (PE) continues to represent a significant health care burden and its incidence is steadily increasing worldwide. Constantly evolving therapeutic options and the rarity of randomized controlled trial data to drive clinical guidelines impose challenges on physicians caring for patients with PE. Recently, PE response teams have been developed and recommended to help address these issues by facilitating a consensus among local experts while advocating the management of acute PE according to each individual patient profile. In this review, we focus on the clinical challenges supporting the need for a PE response team, report the current evidence for their implementation, assess their impact on PE management and outcomes, and address unanswered questions and future directions.

Comparison of Pulmonary Emboli Management Between Pulmonary Emboli Response Team and the Conventional Method: The First Study From Iran

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) for intermediate-high risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients.

METHODS

This single-blind clinical trial was performed in 2019-2021, evaluating patients with intermediate-high risk and high risk of PE. Patients in the intervention group were managed by the PERT team, and treatment plans were implemented as soon as possible. Patients in the other group received conventional PE treatments based on the hospital protocols. We compared the primary outcome of short-term mortality between the 2 groups and secondary outcomes, including right ventricle indices, hospital length-of-stay, time to decision, 30-day and in-hospital bleeding.

RESULTS

Data of 74 patients were analyzed. We found no significant differences between the 2 groups regarding short-term mortality (P = 0.642), bleeding, and other complications. However, the length-of-stay and time to decision were significantly lower in patients treated by the PERT team (P < 0.001 for both). Further evaluations revealed that patients in the intervention group had a more significant reduction in the right ventricle size and systolic pulmonary pressure compared with the control group (P = 0.015, P = 0.039, respectively). In addition, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion and fractional area change increased more in the intervention group (P = 0.023, P = 0.016, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The PERT team led to significantly less time to make decisions, and it was able to select patients for advanced treatments more appropriately. Due to these facts, patients treated by PERT had significantly lower hospitalization duration and better right ventricle indices compared to controls.

Interhospital Transfer for the Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

There are increasing treatment options for the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), though many are only available at tertiary care centers. Patients with acute pulmonary embolism with high-risk features are often transferred for consideration of such therapies. There are limited data describing outcomes in patients transferred with acute pulmonary embolism.

METHODS

We evaluated patients with acute pulmonary embolism at our tertiary care center from August 2012 through August 2018 and compared clinical characteristics, pulmonary embolism features, management, and outcomes in those transferred for acute pulmonary embolism to those that were not transferred.

RESULTS

Of 2050 patients with pulmonary embolism included in the study, 432 (21.1%) were transferred from an outside hospital with a known diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Patients transferred had a lower rate of malignancy (22.2% vs 33.3%; P < .001) and median Charlson comorbidity index (3 vs 4; P < .001). A higher percentage of patients transferred were classified as intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism (62.5% vs 43.0%; P <.001) and more frequently received advanced therapy beyond anticoagulation alone (12.5% vs 3.2%, P < .001). Overall survival to discharge was similar between groups, though definite pulmonary embolism-related mortality was higher in the transferred group (38.5% vs 9.4%, P = .004).

CONCLUSION

More than 1 in 5 patients treated for acute pulmonary embolism at a tertiary care center were transferred from an outside facility. Transferred patients had higher risk pulmonary embolism features, more often received advanced therapy, and had higher definite pulmonary embolism-related mortality. There are opportunities to further optimize outcomes of patients transferred for management of acute pulmonary embolism.

Effect of a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team on Patient Mortality

Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) may improve the care of patients with a high risk of pulmonary embolism (PE). The impact of a PERT on long-term mortality has never been evaluated. An observational analysis was conducted of 137 patients before PERT implementation (between 2014 and 2015) and 231 patients after PERT implementation (between 2016 and 2019), presenting to the emergency department of an academic medical center with submassive and massive PE. The primary outcome was 6-month mortality, evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. PERT was associated with a sustained reduction in mortality through 6 months (6-month mortality rates of 14% post-PERT vs 24% pre-PERT, unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.57, Relative Risk Reduction of 43%, p = 0.025). There was a reduced length of stay following PERT implementation (9.1 vs 6.5 days, p = 0.007). Time from triage to a diagnosis of PE was independently predictive of mortality, and the risk of mortality was reduced by 5% for each hour earlier that the diagnosis was made. In conclusion, this study is the first to demonstrate an association between PERT implementation and a sustained reduction in 6-month mortality for patients with high-risk PE.

Clinical use and outcome of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with pulmonary embolism

AIM OF THE STUDY

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is considered a life-saving treatment option for patients in cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) due to acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We sought to analyze use and outcome of ECMO with or without adjunctive treatment strategies in patients with acute PE.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data on patient characteristics, treatments, and in-hospital outcomes for all PE patients (ICD-code I26) undergoing ECMO in Germany between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

At total of 1,172,354 patients were hospitalized with PE; of those, 2,197 (0.2%) were treated with ECMO support. Cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation was present in 77,196 (6.5%) patients. While more than one fourth of those patients were treated with systemic thrombolysis alone (n = 20,839 patients; 27.0%), a minority of patients received thrombolysis and VA-ECMO (n = 165; 0.2%), embolectomy and VA-ECMO (n = 385; 0.5%) or VA-ECMOalone (n = 588; 0.8%). A multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated the lowest risk for in-hospital death in patients who received embolectomy in combination with VA-ECMO (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.41-0.61], p < 0.001), thrombolysis and VA-ECMO (0.60 [0.43-0.85], p = 0.003) or VA-ECMO alone (0.68 [0.57-0.82], p < 0.001) compared to thrombolysis alone (1.04 [0.99-1.01], p = 0.116).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the use of VA-ECMO alone or as part of a multi-pronged reperfusion approach including embolectomy or thrombolysis might offer survival advantages compared to thrombolysis alone in patients with PE deteriorating to cardiac arrest.

The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: Why and How?

Treatment of patients with intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is a controversial area. Many therapeutic options exist, and deciding on appropriate treatment can be difficult. In addition, multiple specialties are often involved in the care of PE patients. To better organize the response to serious PE patients, several hospitals and academic centers throughout the world have created pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs). The goal of a PERT is to have a single multidisciplinary team of experts in thromboembolic disease, who can respond rapidly to patients with acute PE, and offer consultation and implementation of the full spectrum of therapeutic options. PERT teams were modeled after rapid response teams and are meant to generate a prompt, patient-specific plan for patients with PE without having to consult multiple individual specialists. Data are emerging demonstrating the value of PERTs in reducing hospital length of stay and, possibly, patient outcomes.

Changes in Care for Acute Pulmonary Embolism Through A Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of acute pulmonary embolism requires expertise offered by multiple subspecialties. As such, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have increased in prevalence, but the institutional consequences of a PERT are unclear.

METHODS

We compared all patients that presented to our institution with an acute pulmonary embolism in the 3 years prior to and 3 years after the formation of our PERT. The primary outcome was in-hospital pulmonary embolism-related mortality before and after the formation of the PERT. Sub-analyses were performed among patients with elevated-risk pulmonary embolism.

RESULTS

Between August 2012 and August 2018, 2042 patients were hospitalized at our institution with acute pulmonary embolism, 884 (41.3%) pre-PERT implementation and 1158 (56.7%) post-PERT implementation, of which 165 (14.2%) were evaluated by the PERT. There was no difference in pulmonary embolism-related mortality between the two time periods (2.6% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.9% post-PERT implementation, P = .89). There was increased risk stratification assessment by measurement of cardiac biomarkers and echocardiograms post-PERT implementation. Overall utilization of advanced therapy was similar between groups (5.4% pre-PERT implementation vs 5.4% post-PERT implementation, P = 1.0), with decreased use of systemic thrombolysis (3.8% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.1% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.02) and increased catheter-directed therapy (1.3% pre-PERT implementation vs 3.3% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.05) post-PERT implementation. Inferior vena cava filter use decreased after PERT implementation (10.7% pre-PERT implementation vs 6.9% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.002). Findings were similar when analyzing elevated-risk patients.

CONCLUSION

Pulmonary embolism response teams may increase risk stratification assessment and alter application of advanced therapies, but a mortality benefit was not identified.

Right ventricular dysfunction is superior and sufficient for risk stratification by a pulmonary embolism response team

Several risk stratification tools are available to predict short-term mortality in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The presence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is an independent predictor of mortality and may be a more efficient way to stratify risk for patients assessed by a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT). We evaluated 571 patients presenting with acute PE, then stratified them by the pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI), by the BOVA score, or categorically as low risk (no RV dysfunction by imaging), intermediate risk/submassive (RV dysfunction by imaging), or high risk/massive PE (RV dysfunction with sustained hypotension). Using imaging data to firstly define the presence of RV strain, and plasma cardiac biomarkers as additional evidence for myocardial dysfunction, we evaluated whether PESI, BOVA, or RV strain by imaging were more appropriate for determining patient risk by a PERT where rapid decision making is important. Cardiac biomarkers poorly distinguished between PESI classes and BOVA stages in patients with acute PE. Cardiac TnT and NT-proBNP easily distinguished low risk from submassive PE with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 (95% CI 0.73-0.95, p < 0.0001), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.79-0.97, p < 0.0001), respectively. Cardiac TnT and NT-proBNP easily distinguished low risk from massive PE with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.00, p < 0.0001), and 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.95, p < 0.0001), respectively. In patients with RV dysfunction, the predicted short-term mortality by PESI score or BOVA stage was lower than the observed mortality by a two-fold order of magnitude. The presence of RV dysfunction alone in the context of acute PE is sufficient for the purposes of risk stratification. More complicated risk stratification tools which require the consideration of multiple clinical variables may under-estimate short-term mortality risk.

Overview of Management of Intermediate- and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism

Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) therapy. Intermediate-risk (submassive) or high-risk (massive) PE patients have higher mortality than low-risk patients. It is generally accepted that high-risk PE patients should be considered for more aggressive therapy. Intermediate-risk patients can be subdivided, although more than simply categorizing the patient is required to guide therapy. Therapeutic approaches depend on a prompt, detailed evaluation, and PE response teams may help with rapid assessment and initiation of therapy. More clinical trial data are needed to guide clinicians in the management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE patients.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Purpose, evidence for efficacy, and future research directions

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although new therapeutic tools and strategies have recently been developed for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with PE, the outcomes for patients who present with massive or high-risk PE remain dismal. To address this crisis, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being created around the world in an effort to immediately and simultaneously engage multiple specialists to determine the best course of action and coordinate the clinical care for patients with acute PE. The scope of this review is to describe the PERT model and purpose, present the structure and organization, examine the available evidence for efficacy and usefulness, and propose future directions for research that is needed to demonstrate the value of PERT and determine if this multidisciplinary approach represents a new standard of care.

Assessing the Impact of a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team and Treatment Protocol on Patients Presenting With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) care has traditionally been fragmented. The newly introduced Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) model provides streamlined care based on expedient, multi-disciplinary decision-making. This study aimed to quantify the impact of PERT, as part of a hospital-wide PE treatment protocol, on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive adult patients with acute PE diagnosed via computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) were included. The PERT and treatment protocol were introduced in January 2015. Patient characteristics, therapies, quality measures of CTPA reporting, and clinical outcomes of PE patients treated for 2 years before and after implementation of these changes were evaluated. Primary endpoints were median length of stay in intensive care (ICU) and survival to discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 321 consecutive PE patients were enrolled, of which 154 (treated in 2013-2014) and 167 (2015-2016) patients formed the historical control and study groups, respectively. Implementation of the algorithm was associated with less variance in anticoagulation and improved reporting of right heart strain parameters on CTPA. The ICU stay was reduced from a median of 5 to 2 days (p < 0.01). Eligible massive PE patients receiving reperfusion increased from 30% to 92% (p = 0.01), with mean delay from diagnosis to reperfusion decreasing from 763 to 181 minutes (p < 0.01). Bleeding complications were not increased, but overall survival to discharge remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing a PERT and treatment protocol reduced ICU stay, enhanced quality measures, and improved access of massive PE patients to reperfusion therapies, without increasing bleeding complications or health care costs.

National trends and outcomes for extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation use in high-risk pulmonary embolism

Little is known about the temporal trends and outcomes for extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) in the United States. We queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2005 to 2013 to identify patients admitted with high-risk PE. Our objective was to determine trends for ECMO use in patients with high-risk PE. We also assessed in-hospital outcomes among patients with high-risk PE receiving ECMO. We evaluated 77,809 hospitalizations for high-risk PE. There was an upward trend in the utilization of ECMO from 0.07% in 2005 to 1.1% in 2013 ( p = 0.015). ECMO was utilized more in urban teaching hospitals and large hospitals. ECMO use was associated with lower mortality in patients with massive PE ( p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality for patients receiving ECMO was 61.6%, with no change over the observational period ( p = 0.68). Our investigation revealed several independent predictors of increased mortality in patients with high-risk PE using ECMO as hemodynamic support, including: age, female sex, obesity, congestive heart failure, and chronic pulmonary disease. ECMO, therefore, as a rescue strategy or bridge to definitive treatment, may be effective in the management of high-risk PE when selecting patients with favorable clinical characteristics.