Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Carroll BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8076889 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute pulmonary embolism remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Benefit of recently developed multidisciplinary PE response teams (PERT) with higher utilization of advanced therapies has not been established.MethodsTo evaluate patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary PERT we performed a retrospective analysis of 554 patients with acute PE at the university of Virginia between July 2014 and June 2015 (pre-PERT era) and between April 2017 through October 2018 (PERT era). Six-month survival, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), type of PE therapy, and in-hospital bleeding were assessed upon collected data.Results317 consecutive patients were treated for acute PE during an 18-month period following institution of a multidisciplinary PE program; for 120 patients PERT was activated (PA), the remaining 197 patients with acute PE were considered as a separate, contemporary group (NPA). The historical, comparator cohort (PP) was composed of 237 patients. These 3 groups were similar in terms of baseline demographics, comorbidities and risk, as assessed by the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI). Patients in the historical cohort demonstrated worsened survival when compared with patients treated during the PERT era. During the PERT era no statistically significant difference in survival was observed in the PA group when compared to the NPA group despite significantly higher severity of illness among PA patients. Hospital LOS was not different in the PA group when compared to either the NPA or PP group. Hospital costs did not differ among the 3 cohorts. 30-day re-admission rates were significantly lower during the PERT era. Rates of advanced therapies were significantly higher during the PERT era (9.1% vs. 2%) and were concentrated in the PA group (21.7% vs. 1.5%) without any significant rise in in-hospital bleeding complications.ConclusionsAt our institution, all-cause mortality in patients with acute PE has significantly and durably decreased with the adoption of a PERT program without incurring additional hospital costs or protracting hospital LOS. Our data suggest that the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach at some institutions may provide benefit to select patients with acute PE.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last few years, the concept of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) has emerged to encounter the increasing variety and complexity in managing acute pulmonary embolism (PE).PurposeTo investigate PERT's composition and added clinical value in a university center in Germany.MethodsOver 4 years (01/2019-11/2022), patients with confirmed PE were enrolled in a prospective single-center cohort study (PERT Mainz). We investigated the composition of PERT and compared, after propensity score matching, patients with acute PE before and after the initiation of PERT at our Medical University Centre. The primary outcome was in-hospital PE-related mortality.ResultsFrom 2019 to 2022, 88 patients with acute PE with a PERT decision were registered. Of those, 13 (14.8%) patients died during the in-hospital stay. Patients evaluated by a PERT had a median age of 68; 48.9% were females, and 21.7% suffered from malignancy. Right ventricular dysfunction was present in 76.1% of all patients. In total, 42.0% were classified as intermediate-high-risk PE and 11.4% as high-risk PE. First PERT contact mainly originated from emergency departments (33.3%) and intensive care units (30.0%), followed by chest pain units (21.3%) and regular wards (12.0%). The participation rate of medical specialties demonstrated that cardiologists (100%) or cardiac/vascular surgeons (98.6%) were included in almost all PERT consultations, followed by radiologists (95.9%) and anesthesiologists (87.8%). Compared to the PERT era, more patients in the pre-PERT era were classified as simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI) ≥ 1 (78.4% vs 71.6%) and as high-risk PE according to ESC 2019 guidelines (18.2% vs. 11.4%). In the pre-PERT era, low- and intermediate-low patients with PE received more frequently advanced reperfusion therapies such as systemic thrombolysis or surgical embolectomy compared to the PERT era (10.7% vs. 2.5%). Patients in the pre-PERT were found to have a considerably higher all-cause mortality and PE-related mortality rate (31.8% vs. 14.8%) compared to patients in the PERT era (22.7% vs. 13.6%). After propensity matching (1:1) by including parameters as age, sex, sPESI, and ESC risk classes, univariate regression analyses demonstrated that the PE management based on a PERT decision was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.37 [95%CI 0.18-0.77]; p = 0.009). For PE-related mortality, a tendency for reduction was observed (OR, 0.54 [95%CI 0.24-1.18]; p = 0.121).ConclusionPERT implementation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality rate in patients with acute PE. Large prospective studies are needed further to explore the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterize the association between pulmonary embolism (PE) severity and bleeding risk with treatment approaches, outcomes, and complications.MethodsSecondary analysis of an 11-hospital registry of adult ED patients treated by a PE response team (August 2016-November 2022). Predictors were PE severity and bleeding risk. The primary outcome was treatment approach: anticoagulation monotherapy vs. advanced intervention (categorized as "immediate" or "delayed" based on whether the intervention was received within 12 hours of PE diagnosis or not). Secondary outcomes were death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding.ResultsOf the 1832 patients, 139 (7.6%), 977 (53.3%), and 9 (0.5%) were classified as high-risk, intermediate-high, intermediate-low, and low-risk severity, respectively. There were 94 deaths (5.1%) and 218 patients (11.9%) had one or more clinical deterioration events. Advanced interventions were administered to 86 (61.9%), 195 (27.6%), and 109 (11.2%) patients with high-risk, intermediate-high, and intermediate-low severity, respectively.Major bleeding occurred in 61/1440 (4.2%) on ACm versus 169/392 (7.6%) with advanced interventions (p <0.001): bleeding withcatheter-directed thrombolysiswas 19/145 (13.1%) versus 33/154(21.4%) with systemic thrombolysis,p= 0.07. High risk was twice as strong as intermediate-high risk for association with advanced intervention (OR: 5.3 (4.2 and 6.9) vs. 1.9 (1.6 and 2.2)). High risk (OR: 56.3 (32.0 and 99.2) and intermediate-high risk (OR: 2.6 (1.7 and 4.0)) were strong predictors of clinical deterioration. Major bleeding was significantly associated with advanced interventions (OR: 5.2 (3.5 and 7.8) for immediate, 3.3 (1.8 and 6.2)) for delayed, and high-risk PE severity (OR: 3.4 (1.9 and 5.8)).ConclusionsAdvanced intervention use was associated with high-acuity patients experiencing death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding with a trend towards less bleeding with catheter-directed interventions versus systemic thrombolysis.