RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of mortality with presentation varying between few or no symptoms to sudden death. This makes timely and appropriate treatment extremely important. Multidisciplinary PE response teams (PERT) have emerged to improve the management of acute PE. This study aims to describe the experience of a large multihospital single-network institution with PERT. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for submassive and massive PE between 2012 and 2019 was conducted. The cohort was divided based on time of diagnosis and hospital into two groups: non-PERT included patients treated at hospitals that did not initiate PERT and patients diagnosed before the introduction of PERT (June 1, 2014); and the PERT group included those admitted after June 1, 2014, to a hospital with PERT. Patients with low-risk PE and those who had admissions in both time periods were excluded. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality at 30, 60, and 90 days. Secondary outcomes included causes of death, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU length of stay (LOS), total hospital LOS, type of treatment, and specialty consultations. RESULTS: We analyzed 5190 patients, with 819 (15.8%) being in the PERT group. Patients in the PERT group were more likely to receive extensive workup that included troponin-I (66.3% vs 42.3%; P < .001) and brain natriuretic peptide (50.4% vs 20.3%; P < .001). They also more often received catheter-directed interventions (12% vs 6.2%; P < .001) rather than anticoagulation monotherapy. Mortality outcomes were similar between both groups at all measured timepoints. Rates of ICU admission (65.2% vs 29.7%; P < .001), ICU LOS (median, 64.7 hours; interquartile range [IQR], 41.9-89.1 hours vs median, 38 hours; IQR, 22-66.4 hours; P < .001), and total hospital LOS (median, 5 days; IQR, 3-8 days vs median, 4 days; IQR, 2-6 days; P < .001) were all higher among the PERT group. Patients in the PERT group were more likely to receive vascular surgery consultation (5.3% vs 0.8%; P < .001) and the consultation occurred earlier in the admission when compared with the non-PERT group (median, 0 days; IQR, 0-1 days vs median, 1 day; IQR, 0-1; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: The data presented here showed that there was no difference in mortality after PERT implementation. These results suggest that the presence of PERT increases the number of patients receiving a full PE workup with cardiac biomarkers. PERT also leads to more specialty consultations and more advanced therapies such as catheter-directed interventions. Further research is needed to assess the effect of PERT on long-term survival of patients with massive and submassive PE.
Asunto(s)
Grupo de Atención al Paciente , Embolia Pulmonar , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Embolia Pulmonar/diagnóstico por imagen , Embolia Pulmonar/terapia , Hospitalización , Tiempo de Internación , Terapia Trombolítica/efectos adversos , Terapia Trombolítica/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Catheter-directed interventions (CDIs) are commonly performed for acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The evolving catheter types and treatment algorithms impact the use and outcomes of these interventions. This study aimed to investigate the changes in CDI practice and their impact on outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent CDIs for PE between 2010 and 2019 at a single institution were identified from a prospectively maintained database. A PE team was launched in 2012, and in 2014 was established as an official Pulmonary Embolism Response Team. CDI annual use trends and clinical failures were recorded. Clinical success was defined as physiologic improvement in the absence of major bleeding, perioperative stroke or other procedure-related adverse event, decompensation for submassive or persistent shock for massive PE, the need for surgical thromboembolectomy, or death. Major bleeding was defined as requiring a blood transfusion, a surgical intervention, or suffering from an intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: There were 372 patients who underwent a CDI for acute PE during the study period with a mean age of 58.9 ± 15.4 years; there were males 187 (50.3%) and 340 patients has a submassive PE (91.4%). CDI showed a steep increase in the early Pulmonary Embolism Response Team years, peaking in 2016 with a subsequent decrease. Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis was the predominant CDI technique peaking at 84% of all CDI in 2014. Suction thrombectomy use peaked at 15.2% of CDI in 2019. The mean alteplase dose with catheter thrombolysis techniques decreased from 26.8 ± 12.5 mg in 2013 to 13.9 ± 7.5 mg in 2019 (P < .001). The mean lysis time decreased from 17.2 ± 8.3 hours in 2013 to 11.3 ± 8.2 hours in 2019 (P < .001). Clinical success for the massive and the submassive PE cohorts was 58.1% and 91.2%, respectively; the major bleed rates were 25.0% and 5.3%. There were two major clinical success peaks, one in 2015 mirroring our technical learning curve and one in 2019 mirroring our patient selection learning curve. The clinical success decrease in 2018 was primarily derived from blood transfusions owing to acute blood loss during suction thrombectomy. CONCLUSIONS: CDIs for acute PE have rapidly evolved with high success rates. Multidisciplinary approaches among centers with appropriate expertise are advisable for the safe and successful implementation of catheter interventions.
Asunto(s)
Cateterismo de Swan-Ganz/tendencias , Procedimientos Endovasculares/tendencias , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/tendencias , Embolia Pulmonar/terapia , Trombectomía/tendencias , Terapia Trombolítica/tendencias , Adulto , Anciano , Transfusión Sanguínea/tendencias , Cateterismo de Swan-Ganz/efectos adversos , Cateterismo de Swan-Ganz/mortalidad , Bases de Datos Factuales , Embolectomía/tendencias , Procedimientos Endovasculares/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Endovasculares/mortalidad , Femenino , Hemostasis Quirúrgica/tendencias , Humanos , Hemorragias Intracraneales/etiología , Hemorragias Intracraneales/terapia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Embolia Pulmonar/diagnóstico por imagen , Embolia Pulmonar/mortalidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Trombectomía/efectos adversos , Trombectomía/mortalidad , Terapia Trombolítica/efectos adversos , Terapia Trombolítica/mortalidad , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Catheter-directed interventions (CDIs) have been increasingly used for selected patients with acute intermediate-risk (submassive) pulmonary embolism (sPE) to prevent decompensation, mortality, and potentially long-term sequelae. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the choice of anesthetic during these interventions has an effect on the postprocedural outcomes. METHODS: Patients who had undergone CDI for acute sPE from 2009 to 2019 were identified and grouped according to the intraprocedural use of propofol. The primary outcome was in-hospital intra- or postprocedural major adverse events, defined as the need for intubation, progression to massive pulmonary embolism, and in-hospital death. Major bleeding events (ie, intracerebral hemorrhage, transfusion of ≥2 U, the need for reintervention) were also assessed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the predictors of the studied outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 340 patients (age, 58.74 ± 15.22 years; 51.2% men) had undergone CDI for sPE (85 standard thrombolysis, 229 ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis, 26 suction thrombectomy). Propofol had been used for 36 patients (10.6%); the remaining 304 patients (89.4%) had received midazolam plus fentanyl, morphine, or hydromorphone for anesthesia. The baseline characteristics of both groups were similar, except for age, hypertension, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and procedure type, with ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis the predominant procedure for the no-propofol group (74%). Overall, 18 patients had experienced ≥1 events of the composite outcome (ie, 10 intubations, 11 decompensations, 2 surgical conversions, 3 deaths). The propofol group had a significantly greater adverse event rate (13.8%; n = 5) compared with the no-propofol group (4.2%; n = 13; P = .015). On multivariate analysis, propofol was still a predictive factor for adverse events (odds ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-12.93; P = .03). A total of 16 patients had experienced major bleeding or other procedure-related events, including stroke in 4 (1.17%), coronary sinus perforation in 1, tricuspid valve rupture in 1, and the need for transfusion in 10 patients. The type of intervention (ie, standard thrombolysis, ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis, suction thrombectomy) was not a predictive factor for any studied outcome. CONCLUSIONS: CDIs are low-risk procedures with minimal postoperative morbidity and mortality in the setting of acute sPE. However, the use of propofol for intraprocedural sedation should be avoided because it can have detrimental effects.
Asunto(s)
Anestésicos Intravenosos/efectos adversos , Propofol/efectos adversos , Embolia Pulmonar/terapia , Trombectomía/efectos adversos , Terapia Trombolítica/efectos adversos , Adulto , Anciano , Anestésicos Intravenosos/administración & dosificación , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Propofol/administración & dosificación , Embolia Pulmonar/diagnóstico por imagen , Embolia Pulmonar/mortalidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Trombectomía/mortalidad , Terapia Trombolítica/mortalidad , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Introduction: Catheter directed interventions (CDIs) have evolved over the past decade in an attempt to reduce the complications of systemic thrombolysis, while providing equivalent therapeutic benefits.Areas covered: CDIs include a wide array of catheters that incorporate ultrasound technology, the infusion of thrombolytics through multi-side hole catheters and suction thrombectomy systems. We present a contemporary review summarizing the different catheter directed interventions currently available for acute PE, their indications, technical considerations, clinical effectiveness, complication rates and long-term outcomes.Expert opinion: For intermediate high-risk PE patients without a contraindication for thrombolysis, CDIs should be considered in patients at risk for clinical decompensation. For high risk PE patients with a major contraindication to thrombolytic therapy, suction thrombectomy can be considered in places with appropriate clinical and technical expertise.