Brett J Carroll1, Sebastian E Beyer2, Tyler Mehegan2, Andrew Dicks2, Abby Pribish2, Andrew Locke3, Anuradha Godishala3, Kevin Soriano2, Jaya Kanduri2, Kelsey Sack2, Inbar Raber2, Cara Wiest2, Isabel Balachandran2, Mason Marcus2, Louis Chu4, Margaret M Hayes5, Jeff L Weinstein6, Kenneth A Bauer7, Eric A Secemsky2, Duane S Pinto2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: bcarrol2@bidmc.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 4. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 5. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 6. Division of Interventional Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 7. Division of Hematology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
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.
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.
Authors: Colin Wright; Ayman Elbadawi; Yu Lin Chen; Dhwani Patel; Justin Mazzillo; Nicole Acquisto; Christine Groth; Joseph Van Galen; Joseph Delehanty; Anthony Pietropaoli; David Trawick; R James White; Pamela Cameron; Igor Gosev; Bryan Barrus; Neil G Kumar; Scott J Cameron Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Eric Secemsky; Yuchiao Chang; C Charles Jain; Joshua A Beckman; Jay Giri; Michael R Jaff; Kenneth Rosenfield; Rachel Rosovsky; Christopher Kabrhel; Ido Weinberg Journal: Am J Med Date: 2018-08-11 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Rose S Solomon; Gregory S Corwin; Dawn C Barclay; Sarah F Quddusi; Michelle D Dannenberg Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Romain Chopard; Umberto Campia; Lucas Morin; Karola S Jering; Zaid I Almarzooq; Julia Elizabeth Snyder; Samantha Rizzo; Aaron B Waxman; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Gregory Piazza Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2022-09-03 Impact factor: 5.221
Authors: Lukas Hobohm; Ioannis T Farmakis; Karsten Keller; Barbara Scibior; Anna C Mavromanoli; Ingo Sagoschen; Thomas Münzel; Ingo Ahrens; Stavros Konstantinides Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 6.138
Authors: Arkadiusz Pietrasik; Aleksandra Gąsecka; Paweł Kurzyna; Katarzyna Wrona; Szymon Darocha; Marta Banaszkiewicz; Dariusz Zieliński; Dominika Zajkowska; Julia Maria Smyk; Dominika Rymaszewska; Karolina Jasińska; Marcin Wasilewski; Rafał Wolański; Grzegorz Procyk; Piotr Szwed; Michał Florczyk; Krzysztof Wróbel; Marcin Grabowski; Adam Torbicki; Marcin Kurzyna Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.964