Effect of a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team on Patient Mortality.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wright C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8761489 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Effect of a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team on Patient Mortality.
Wright Colin C Goldenberg Ilan I Schleede Susan S McNitt Scott S Gosev Igor I Elbadawi Ayman A Pietropaoli Anthony A Barrus Bryan B Chen Yu Lin YL Mazzillo Justin J Acquisto Nicole M NM Van Galen Joseph J Hamer Annelise A Marinescu Mark M Delehanty Joseph J Cameron Scott J SJ
The American journal of cardiology 20211201
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 outc ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundOptimal 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsBetween 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.ConclusionPulmonary embolism response teams may increase risk stratification assessment and alter application of advanced therapies, but a mortality benefit was not identified.
| S-EPMC8076889 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10954947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited data are available on the utilization of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) in the setting of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We performed a single-center study to evaluate treatment, mortality, and bleeding outcomes in patients who received PERT consultations in March and April 2020, compared to historical controls from the same period in 2019. Clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. The primary study endpoints were inpatient mortality and GUSTO moderate-to-severe bleeding. The frequency of PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during March and April 2020 (n = 74) compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 26). During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significantly less PERT-guided invasive treatment (5.5% vs 23.1%, p = 0.02) with a numerical but not statistically significant trend toward an increase in the use of systemic fibrinolytic therapy (13.5% vs 3.9%, p = 0.3). There were nonsignificant trends toward higher in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding in patients receiving PERT consultations during the COVID-19 period compared to historical controls (mortality 14.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.18 and moderate-to-severe bleeding 35.1% vs 19.2%, p = 0.13). In conclusion, PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than during the historical control period. Among patients evaluated by PERT, in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding were not significantly different, despite being numerically higher, while invasive therapy was utilized less frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC8047511 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7310489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PERTs are a new, multidisciplinary approach to PE care. They were conceived to efficiently identify and risk stratify PE patients and standardize care delivery. More research needs to be conducted to assess the effects that PERTs have had on PE care. This study sought to determine the effects of a PERT on quality and overall value of care. This was a retrospective study of all patients 18 years of age or older who presented with a principal diagnosis of an acute PE based on available ICD codes from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018. Patients who did not have an imaging study, i.e., CTPA or ECHO, available were excluded. Patients were divided into pre- (before October 2015) and post-PERT eras (after October 2015) and stratified based on the presence of right heart strain/dysfunction on imaging. All quality outcomes were extracted from the EMR, and cost outcomes were provided by the financial department. 530 individuals (226 pre-PERT and 304 post-PERT) were identified for analysis. Quality outcomes improved between the eras; most notably in-hospital mortality decreased (16.5 vs. 9.6) and hospital LOS decreased (7.7 vs. 4.4) (p < 0.05). Total cost of care also decreased a statistically significant amount between the eras. The implementation of a PERT improved quality and cost of care, resulting in improved value. We hypothesize that this may be due to more timely identification and risk stratification leading to earlier interventions and streamlined decision making, but further research is required to validate these findings in larger cohorts.
| S-EPMC8325945 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular death. Psychological distress in PE is understudied and underrecognized.ObjectivesThe primary aim of this proposed protocol was to describe the incidence of psychological distress symptoms (anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, and fear of recurrence) in the survivors of PE after discharge from hospitalization. The secondary aim was to assess the influence of acute disease, etiology, and treatment of PE on psychological distress.MethodsThis is a prospective observational cohort study in a large tertiary care referral center. The participants are adult patients presenting to the hospital with PE fulfilling objective pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) activation criteria. After discharge, patients complete a series of validated measures of psychological distress (anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, and fear of recurrence) and quality of life at follow-ups approximately 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after diagnosis and treatment of their PE. Factors influencing each type of distress are evaluated.ConclusionThis protocol aims to identify the unmet needs of patients experiencing psychological distress following PE. It will describe anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, and posttraumatic symptoms in PE survivors during the first year of outpatient follow-up in a PERT clinic.
| S-EPMC9975272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe risk of death from acute pulmonary embolism can range as high as 15%, depending on patient factors at initial presentation. Acute treatment decisions are largely based on an estimate of this mortality risk.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of risk assessment scores in a modern, US cohort of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter cohort study was conducted between October 2016 and October 2017 at 8 hospitals participating in the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) Consortium registry. Included patients were adults who presented with acute pulmonary embolism and had sufficient information in the medical record to calculate risk scores. Data analysis was performed from March to May 2020.Main outcomes and measuresAll-cause mortality (7- and 30-day) and associated discrimination were assessed by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC).ResultsAmong 416 patients with acute pulmonary embolism (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [17.6] years; 207 men [49.8%]), 7-day mortality in the low-risk groups ranged from 1.3% (1 patient) to 3.1% (4 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 2.6% (1 patient) to 10.2% (13 patients). Among patients in the highest-risk groups, the 7-day mortality ranged from 7.0% (18 patients) to 16.3% (7 patients), whereas 30-day mortality ranged from 14.4% (37 patients) to 26.3% (26 patients). Each of the risk stratification tools had modest discrimination for 7-day mortality (AUC range, 0.616-0.666) with slightly lower discrimination for 30-day mortality (AUC range, 0.550-0.694).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that commonly used risk tools for acute pulmonary embolism have modest estimating ability. Future studies to develop and validate better risk assessment tools are needed.
| S-EPMC7450352 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10980543 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6954969 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) may be treated with pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) and medical therapy (MT). Assessment in a multidisciplinary team of experts (CTEPH team) is currently recommended for treatment decision making. The aim of the present study was to report the effects of such an interdisciplinary concept. METHODS AND RESULTS:A total of 160 patients were consulted by the CTEPH team between December 2015 and September 2018. Patient baseline characteristics, CTEPH team decisions and implementation rates of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were analysed. Change in World Health Organization (WHO) functional class and survival rates were evaluated by treatment strategy. A total of 51 (32%) patients were assessed as operable and 109 (68%) were deemed inoperable. Thirty-one (61% of operable patients) underwent PEA. Patients treated with PEA, BPA(+MT) and MT alone were 50.9 ± 14.7, 62.9 ± 15.1 and 68.9 ± 12.7 years old, respectively. At the follow-up, PEA patients had the highest WHO functional class improvement. Patients treated with BPA(+MT) had significantly better survival than PEA (p = 0.04) and MT patients (p = 0.04; 2-year survival of 92%, 79% and 79%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The CTEPH team ensures that necessary diagnostic procedures are performed. A relatively low proportion of patients was assessed by the CTEPH team as operable and underwent surgery, which in survivors resulted in the best functional improvement. Although patients undergoing BPA(+MT) were older than patients treated with PEA, their survival was better than patients subjected to PEA or MT alone. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC6935880 | biostudies-literature