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

Combined endovascular interventions for pulmonary embolism at high altitude in Tibet

Background

Managing pulmonary embolism (PE) at extremely high altitudes poses unique challenges due to harsh environmental conditions and limited healthcare resources.

Method

This study retrospectively analyzed Tibetan PE patients in the Tibet Autonomous Region of China to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combined endovascular interventional therapy in high-altitude areas.

Results

The average altitude of long-term residence for Tibetan patients was 3,863.4 ± 317.4 m, with an average age of 62.0 ± 16.0 years, and the time from computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) diagnosis to interventional treatment averaged 2.8 ± 2.2 days. The operation time for these patients was 106.1 ± 22.2 min, and the intraoperative dose of alteplase used was 23.3 ± 5.0 mg. All 9 patients reported profound remission of dyspnea and chest pain after endovascular interventions. The heart rate (p < 0.05) and respiratory rate (p < 0.001) of all enrolled patients were significantly decreased, and the peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) was significantly increased (p < 0.05) after interventions. No severe complications, such as bleeding, occurred in any patient.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the potential clinical benefits and feasibility of combined endovascular interventional therapy for treating acute PE in extreme high-altitude regions.

Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Patients-Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management

Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are often immobilized and on mechanical ventilation, placing them at increased risk for thromboembolic diseases, particularly deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and, to a lesser extent, pulmonary embolism (PE). While these conditions are frequently encountered in the emergency department, managing them in the ICU presents unique challenges. Although existing guidelines are comprehensive and effective, they are primarily designed for patients presenting with PE in the emergency department and do not fully address the complexities of managing critically ill patients in the ICU. This review aims to summarize the available data on these challenging cases, offering a practical approach to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of PE, particularly when it is acquired in the ICU.

Severe Traumatic Brain Injury and Pulmonary Embolism: Risks, Prevention, Diagnosis and Management

Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) is a silent epidemic, causing approximately 300,000 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions annually, with a 30% mortality rate. Despite worldwide efforts to optimize the management of patients and improve outcomes, the level of evidence for the treatment of these patients remains low. The concomitant occurrence of thromboembolic events, particularly pulmonary embolism (PE), remains a challenge for intensivists due to the risks of anticoagulation to the injured brain. We performed a literature review on sTBI and concomitant PE to identify and report the most recent advances on this topic. We searched PubMed and Scopus for papers published in the last five years that included the terms "pulmonary embolism" and "traumatic brain injury" in their title or abstract. Exclusion criteria were papers referring to children, non-sTBI populations, and post-acute care. Our search revealed 75 papers, of which 38 are included in this review. The main topics covered include the prevalence of and risk factors for pulmonary embolism, the challenges of timely diagnosis in the ICU, the timing of pharmacological prophylaxis, and the treatment of diagnosed PE.

Evolution of Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams in the United States: A Review of the Literature

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a significant cause of cardiovascular mortality, with varying presentations and management challenges. Traditional treatment approaches often differ, particularly for submassive/intermediate-risk PEs, because of the lack of clear guidelines and comparative data on treatment efficacy. The introduction of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) aims to standardize and improve outcomes in acute PE management through multidisciplinary collaboration. This review examines the conception, evolution, and operational mechanisms of PERTs while providing a critical analysis of their implementation and efficacy using retrospective trials and recent randomized trials. The study also explores the integration of advanced therapeutic devices and treatment protocols facilitated by PERTs. PERT programs have significantly influenced the management of both massive and submassive PEs, with notable improvements in clinical outcomes such as decreased mortality and reduced length of hospital stay. The utilization of advanced therapies, including catheter-directed thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, has increased under PERT guidance. Evidence from various studies, including those from the National PERT Consortium, underscores the benefits of these multidisciplinary teams in managing complex PE cases, despite some studies showing no significant difference in mortality. PERT programs have demonstrated potentials to reduce morbidity and mortality, streamlining the use of healthcare resources and fostering a model of sustainable practice across medical centers. PERT program implementation appears to have improved PE treatment protocols and innovated advanced therapy options, which will be further refined as they are employed in clinical practice. The continued expansion of the capabilities of PERTs and the forthcoming results from ongoing randomized trials are expected to further define and optimize management protocols for acute PEs.

The Current Evidence of Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams and Their Role in Future

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a critical medical condition requiring prompt and accurate management. The introduction and growing significance of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT), also termed EXPERT-PE teams, signify a paradigm shift toward a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach in managing this complex entity. As the understanding of acute PE continues to evolve, PERTs stand as a linkage of optimized care, offering personalized and evidence-based management strategies for patients afflicted by this life-threatening condition. The evolving role of PERTs globally is evident in their increasing integration into the standard care pathways for acute PE. These teams have demonstrated benefits such as reducing time to diagnosis and treatment initiation, optimizing resource utilization, and improving patient outcomes.

Need for a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-Promoting a Team-Based Model of Care to Improve Outcomes and Identify Best Practices

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time-sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well-resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team-based approach to care (the "shock team") has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high-volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative-akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium-with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.

Effect of a pulmonary embolism response team on the management and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the effects of a multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism (PE) response team (PERT) on the management and outcomes of patients with acute PE.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients presenting to our institution with a diagnosis of PE from July 2020 to April 2022. The primary outcome measures were in-hospital mortality, major bleeding events defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, and use of catheter-directed interventions (CDIs). The secondary outcome measures included 30-day and 12-month mortality, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, vasopressor requirement, and cardiac arrest. Continuous variables were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test and categorical variables using the χ2 or Fisher exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients with acute PE were identified, of whom 79 (28%), 173 (62%), and 27 (10%) were considered to have low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk, respectively. The PERT was activated for 133 patients (47.7%). Saddle and main pulmonary artery embolisms (P < .001), right ventricular strain (P= .001), right ventricular dysfunction (P < .001), coexisting deep vein thrombosis (P < .001), and dyspnea as a presenting symptom (P = .008) were significantly associated with PERT activation. Patients evaluated by the PERT were more likely to undergo CDI (49% vs 27%; P < .001) across all risk groups and less likely to have an inferior vena cava filter placed (1% vs 5%; P = .04). PERT consultation showed numerical, but nonstatistically significant, trends toward reduced in-hospital (2% vs 5%; P = .2) and 30-day (2% vs 8%; P = .06) mortality but similar rates of 12-month mortality (7% vs 8%; P = .7). PERT activation was also associated with a trend toward reduced rates of major bleeding (2% vs 7%), cardiac arrest (2% vs 7%), and vasopressor requirement (9% vs 18%). PERT consultations decreased the median number of ICU days by one half; however, we did not observe any differences in the total hospital length of stay between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At our institution, PERT consultations were associated with significantly higher usage of CDIs and improved clinical outcomes, including reduced mortality and a lower rate of major bleeding events. PERT consultations were also associated with fewer ICU days, suggesting a possible economic benefit for implementing PERTs, although further research is needed to confirm that conclusion.