P-M Roy1, D J Corsi2, M Carrier3, A Theogene4, C de Wit3, C Dennie5, G Le Gal3, A Delluc6, T Moumneh1, M Rodger3, P Wells3, E Gandara3. 1. Emergency Department, CHU Angers; Institut MITOVASC, EA 3860, Université d'Angers, Angers, France. 2. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Haematology - Thrombosis Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 4. Medical Study, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 5. Department of Medical Imaging, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, CHU de la Cavale Blanche, Université de Bretagne Occidentale, EA3878 (GETBO), CIC INSERM 1412, Brest, France.
Abstract
Essentials Clinical benefit of hospitalization vs. outpatient treatment in pulmonary embolism (PE) is unknown. We performed a propensity matched cohort study of hemodynamically stable PE patients. Regardless of the risk assessment, hospitalized patients had the highest rate of adverse event. If confirmed, ambulatory care of normotensive PE patients may be preferred whenever possible. SUMMARY: Background The decision to hospitalize or not patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. Despite the advantages of close monitoring, hospitalization by itself may lead to in-hospital complications and potentially worsen the prognosis of PE patients. Objectives To determine the net clinical benefit of hospitalization vs. outpatient management of normotensive patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods Retrospective cohort propensity score analysis (radius marching with replacement). Hemodynamically stable PE patients treated as outpatients or inpatients were matched to balance out differences for 28 patient characteristics and known risk factors for adverse events. The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events at 14 days, including recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding or death. Results Among 1127 eligible patients, 1081 were included in the matched cohort, 576 treated as inpatients and 505 as outpatients. The 14-day rate of adverse events was 13.0% for inpatients and 3.3% for outpatients (adjusted OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.68-15.28). The 3-month rate was 21.7% for inpatients and 6.9% for outpatients (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.62-9.17). In the high-risk subgroup (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index class III-V; n = 597), the 14-day rate of adverse events was 16.5% for hospitalized patients vs. 4.5% for outpatients (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.2-14.35). Conclusion Outpatient treatment of hemodynamically stable PE patients seems to be associated with a lower rate of adverse events than hospitalization and, if confirmed, may be considered as first-line management in patients not requiring specific in-hospital care, regardless of their initial risk stratification, if proper outpatient care can be provided.
Essentials Clinical benefit of hospitalization vs. outpatient treatment in pulmonary embolism (PE) is unknown. We performed a propensity matched cohort study of hemodynamically stable PE patients. Regardless of the risk assessment, hospitalized patients had the highest rate of adverse event. If confirmed, ambulatory care of normotensive PE patients may be preferred whenever possible. SUMMARY: Background The decision to hospitalize or not patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is controversial. Despite the advantages of close monitoring, hospitalization by itself may lead to in-hospital complications and potentially worsen the prognosis of PE patients. Objectives To determine the net clinical benefit of hospitalization vs. outpatient management of normotensive patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Methods Retrospective cohort propensity score analysis (radius marching with replacement). Hemodynamically stable PE patients treated as outpatients or inpatients were matched to balance out differences for 28 patient characteristics and known risk factors for adverse events. The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events at 14 days, including recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding or death. Results Among 1127 eligible patients, 1081 were included in the matched cohort, 576 treated as inpatients and 505 as outpatients. The 14-day rate of adverse events was 13.0% for inpatients and 3.3% for outpatients (adjusted OR, 5.07; 95% CI, 1.68-15.28). The 3-month rate was 21.7% for inpatients and 6.9% for outpatients (OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.62-9.17). In the high-risk subgroup (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index class III-V; n = 597), the 14-day rate of adverse events was 16.5% for hospitalized patients vs. 4.5% for outpatients (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.2-14.35). Conclusion Outpatient treatment of hemodynamically stable PE patients seems to be associated with a lower rate of adverse events than hospitalization and, if confirmed, may be considered as first-line management in patients not requiring specific in-hospital care, regardless of their initial risk stratification, if proper outpatient care can be provided.
Authors: Jori E May; Patrick C Irelan; Kailee Boedeker; Emily Cahill; Steven Fein; David A Garcia; Lisa K Hicks; Janice Lawson; Ming Y Lim; Colleen T Morton; Anita Rajasekhar; Satish Shanbhag; Marc S Zumberg; Robert M Plovnick; Nathan T Connell Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-09-22
Authors: David C Rotzinger; Jean-François Knebel; Anne-Marie Jouannic; Ghazal Adler; Salah D Qanadli Journal: Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging Date: 2020-08-27
Authors: Pamela L Lutsey; Rob F Walker; Richard F MacLehose; Faye L Norby; Line H Evensen; Alvaro Alonso; Neil A Zakai Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Jeffrey A Kline; David H Adler; Naomi Alanis; Joseph R Bledsoe; Daniel M Courtney; James P d'Etienne; Deborah B Diercks; John S Garrett; Alan E Jones; David C Mackenzie; Troy Madsen; Andrew J Matuskowitz; Bryn E Mumma; Kristen E Nordenholz; Justine Pagenhardt; Michael S Runyon; William B Stubblefield; Christopher B Willoughby Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-06-21
Authors: Jeffrey Kline; David Adler; Naomi Alanis; Joseph Bledsoe; Daniel Courtney; James D'Etienne; Deborah B Diercks; John Garrett; Alan E Jones; David MacKenzie; Troy Madsen; Andrew Matuskowitz; Bryn Mumma; Kristen Nordenholz; Justine Pagenhardt; Michael Runyon; William Stubblefield; Christopher Willoughby Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Pierre-Marie Roy; Andrea Penaloza; Olivier Hugli; Frederikus A Klok; Armelle Arnoux; Antoine Elias; Francis Couturaud; Luc-Marie Joly; Raphaëlle Lopez; Laura M Faber; Marie Daoud-Elias; Benjamin Planquette; Jérôme Bokobza; Damien Viglino; Jeannot Schmidt; Henry Juchet; Isabelle Mahe; Frits Mulder; Magali Bartiaux; Rosen Cren; Thomas Moumneh; Isabelle Quere; Nicolas Falvo; Karine Montaclair; Delphine Douillet; Charlotte Steinier; Stephan V Hendriks; Ygal Benhamou; Tali-Anne Szwebel; Gilles Pernod; Nicolas Dublanchet; François-Xavier Lapebie; Nicolas Javaud; Alexandre Ghuysen; Mustapha Sebbane; Gilles Chatellier; Guy Meyer; David Jimenez; Menno V Huisman; Olivier Sanchez Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 29.983