Search

The coexistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pulmonary embolism (PE), two life-threatening illnesses, in the same patient presents a unique challenge. Guidelines have delineated how best to diagnose and manage patients with PE. However, the unique aspects of COVID-19 confound both the diagnosis and treatment of PE, and therefore require modification of established algorithms. Important considerations include adjustment of diagnostic modalities, incorporation of the prothrombotic contribution of COVID-19, management of two critical cardiorespiratory illnesses in the same patient, and protecting patients and health-care workers while providing optimal care. The benefits of a team-based approach for decision-making and coordination of care, such as that offered by pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs), have become more evident in this crisis. The importance of careful follow-up care also is underscored for patients with these two diseases with long-term effects. This position paper from the PERT Consortium specifically addresses issues related to the diagnosis and management of PE in patients with COVID-19.

Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) therapy. Intermediate-risk (submassive) or high-risk (massive) PE patients have higher mortality than low-risk patients. It is generally accepted that high-risk PE patients should be considered for more aggressive therapy. Intermediate-risk patients can be subdivided, although more than simply categorizing the patient is required to guide therapy. Therapeutic approaches depend on a prompt, detailed evaluation, and PE response teams may help with rapid assessment and initiation of therapy. More clinical trial data are needed to guide clinicians in the management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE patients.

Purpose: This study investigated physician compliance with indications for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement according to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the 2011 Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines.Materials and Methods: A retrospective medical record review of 231 retrievable IVC filters placed between August 15, 2016, and December 28, 2017, at a large urban academic medical center. Guideline compliance to the 2012 ACCP and the 2011 SIR guidelines, and indications for IVC filter placements were assessed through an adjudication protocol. Filter retrieval and complication rates were also examined.Results: Compliance to guidelines was low (60.2% for ACCP; 74.0% for SIR), especially for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients (ICU 74.6% vs non-ICU 54.8%, p=0.007 for ACCP; ICU 82.5% vs non-ICU 70.8%, p=0.092 for SIR). After adjudication, 8.2% (19/231) of filters were considered non-indicated but reasonable, 17.7% (41/231) non-indicated and unreasonable, and 13.9% (32/231) SIR-indicated but not ACCP-indicated. The most common indication was venous thromboembolism with contraindication to anticoagulation. The most common reasons for non-compliance were distal deep venous thrombosis with contraindication to anticoagulation (19/60, 31.6%) and clot burden (19/60, 31.6%). One-year filter retrieval and 90-day complication rates were 32.0% (74/231) and 6.1% (14/231), respectively.Conclusion: Compliance to established guidelines was low. Reasons for non-compliance included limitations or discrepancies in guidelines, as well as non–evidence-based filter placements.Clinical Impact Despite increasing utilization of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, guideline compliance for IVC filter placement among providers is unclear. The results of this study indicate that physician compliance to established guidelines is poor, especially in non-intensive-care-unit patients. Noncompliance stems from non-evidence-based filter placement as well as differences and limitations in guidelines. Avoiding non-indicated IVC filter placement and consolidation of guidelines may significantly improve guideline compliance. The critical insights gained from this study can help promote judicious use of IVC filters and highlight the role of venous thromboembolism experts in navigating complex cases and nuances of guidelines.