Search

Aims: Catheter-directed treatment (CDT) of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is entering a growth phase in Europe following a steady increase in the USA in the past decade, but the potential economic impact on European healthcare systems remains unknown., Methods and Results: We built two statistical models for the monthly trend of proportion of CDT among patients with severe (intermediate- or high-risk) PE in the USA. The conservative model was based on admission data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2016-20 and the model reflecting increasing access to advanced treatment from the PERT™ national quality assurance database registry 2018-21. By applying these models to the forecast of annual PE-related hospitalizations in Germany, we calculated the annual number of severe PE cases and the expected increase in CDT use for the period 2025-30. The NIS-based model yielded a slow increase, reaching 3.1% (95% confidence interval 3.0-3.2%) among all hospitalizations with PE in 2030; in the PERT-based model, increase would be steeper, reaching 8.7% (8.3-9.2%). Based on current reimbursement rates, we estimated an increase of annual costs for PE-related hospitalizations in Germany ranging from 15.3 to 49.8 million euros by 2030. This calculation does not account for potential cost savings, including those from reduced length of hospital stay., Conclusion: Our approach and results, which may be adapted to other European healthcare systems, provide a benchmark for healthcare costs expected to result from CDT. Data from ongoing trials on clinical benefits and cost savings are needed to determine cost-effectiveness and inform reimbursement decisions., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: K.M, Kl.K., Ka.K., H.B., T.N., C.A., I.T.F., T.M.T., K.C., M.L., J.R., and L.V.: no disclosures; B.K.: AngioDynamics, Penumbra, Viz.ai, and Dexcom (consultant); R.P.R.: BMS and Janssen (institutional research support); Abbott, Dova, Inari, Janssen, and Penumbra (advisory/consultant); STORM-PE National Lead Investigator, Penumbra; The PERT Consortium™ President; J.M.M.: AngioDynamics, Penumbra, Argon Medical, Pavmed, Auxetics, Innova Vascular, Inquis Medical, Retriever Medical, and Boston Scientific (consultant); K.R.: Abbott Vascular, AngioDynamics, Auxetics, Becton Dickinson, Boston Scientific, Contego, Imperative Care/TRUVIC, Johnson and Johnson Biosense Webster, Medtronic, Neptune Medical, Philips, SurModics, and Terumo (consultant/advisory board); Access Vascular, Aerami, Althea Medical, Auxetics, Contego, Endospan, Imperative Care/TRUVIC, Innova Vascular, InspireMD, JanaCare, Magneto, MedAlliance, Neptune Medical, Orchestra, ProSomnus, Sealonix, Shockwave, Skydance, Summa Therapeutics, Thrombolex, Valcare, Vantis Vascular, Vasorum, and VuMedi (equity or stock options); NIH, Abiomed, Boston Scientific, Novo Nordisk, Penumbra, and Gettinge-Atrium (research grants via institution); The National PERT Consortium™, Board of Directors; S.B. Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Bayer, and Sanofi (institutional research support by Board); Boston Scientific, Penumbra, and Viatris (personal fees/honoraria); R.N.C.: Penumbra, Steering Committee; J.S.G.: advisor and research fees to the institution from Boston Scientific and Inari Medical; equity in Endovascular Engineering; R.A.L.: Boston Scientific and Medtronic (advisory board); Penumbra, Abbott Vascular, Neptune Medical, Bard Vascular, Cordis, Biosense Webster, Becton Dickinson, SurModics, and Abbott Vascular (speakers bureau); Philips Healthcare, Spectranetics, Terumo, Boston Scientific, Inari, Penumbra, Ethicon, Vesper, and Black Swan (research support); Imperative Vascular, Summa Vascular, Innova Vascular, and Thrombolex (equity shareholder); L.H.: MSD and Janssen (personal lecture/consultant fees); S.V.K.: Bayer AG, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, LumiraDx, and Penumbra (personal lecture/advisory fees and research grants to institution); MSD, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb (personal lecture/advisory fees); E.A.S.: NIH/NHLBI K23HL150290, Food & Drug Administration, and SCAI (funding); Abbott, BD, Boston Scientific, Cook, Medtronic, and Philips (grants to institution); Abbott, BD, Boston Scientific, Cagent, Conavi, Cook, Cordis, InfraRedx, Medtronic, Philips, Recor, Shockwave, and VentureMed (speaking/consulting)., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Morbidity and mortality for acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remain high. Therapies such as catheter-directed thrombolysis may improve outcomes, but these are generally reserved for higher-risk patients. Imaging may help guide the use of the newer therapies, but current guidelines focus more on clinical factors. Our goal was to create a risk model that incorporated quantitative echocardiographic and computed tomography (CT) measures of right ventricular (RV) size and function, thrombus burden, and serum biomarkers of cardiac overload or injury., Methods: This was a retrospective study of 150 patients evaluated by a PE response team. Echocardiography was performed within 48 hours of diagnosis. Computed tomography measures included RV/left ventricular (LV) ratio and thrombus load (Qanadli score). Echocardiography was used to obtain various quantitative measures of RV function. We compared characteristics of those who met the primary endpoint (7-day mortality and clinical deterioration) to those who did not. Receiver operating curve analysis was used to assess the performance of different combinations of clinically relevant features and the association with adverse outcomes., Results: Fifty-two percent of patients were female, with age 62 ± 17 years, systolic blood pressure 123 ± 25 mm Hg, heart rate 98 ± 19, troponin 3.2 ± 35 ng/dL, and b-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) 467 ± 653. Fourteen (9.3%) were treated with systemic thrombolytics, 27 (18%) underwent catheter-directed thrombolytics, 23 (15%) were intubated or required vasopressors, and 14 (9.3%) died. Patients who met the primary endpoint (44%) versus those who did not (56%) had lower RV S' (6.6 vs 11.9 cm/sec; P < .001) and RV free wall strain (-10.9% vs -13.6%; P = .005), higher RV/LV ratio on CT, and higher serum BNP and troponin levels. Receiver operating curve analysis demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.89 for a model that included RV S', RV free wall strain and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/RV systolic pressure ratio from echo, thrombus load and RV/LV ratio from CT, and troponin and BNP levels., Conclusion: A combination of clinical, echo, and CT findings that reflect the hemodynamic effects of the embolism identified patients with adverse events related to acute PE. Optimized scoring systems that focus on reversible abnormalities attributable to PE may allow more appropriate triaging of intermediate- to high-risk patients with PE for early interventional strategy., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common cause of cardiovascular disease after myocardial infarction and stroke. Population-based studies estimate that up to 94,000 new cases of pulmonary embolism (PE) occur in the United States annually with an increasing incidence with age. Mortality from PE is the greatest in the first 24 hours, with a decreased survival extending out 3 months. Thus, acute PE is a potentially fatal illness if not recognized and treated in a timely manner. Contemporary management includes systemic anticoagulation, thrombolysis, catheter-based procedures, and surgical embolectomy. This article reviews current clinical evidence and societal guidelines for the use of systemic and catheter-directed thrombolysis for treatment of acute PE., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The 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., Objective: To assess the performance of risk assessment scores in a modern, US cohort of patients with acute pulmonary embolism., Design, Setting, and Participants: This 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 Measures: All-cause mortality (7- and 30-day) and associated discrimination were assessed by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC)., Results: Among 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 Relevance: These 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.

There is a paucity of robust clinical trial data to guide the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) thus the clinical guidelines rely heavily on expert opinion. Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have been developed to streamline the care of patients with acute PE. We conducted a survey among 100 experts in the field of PE during the second annual meeting of the PERT Consortium. Respondents were queried with respect to their demographic information, clinical practice questions and clinical vignettes. Clinical practice questions were focused questions about the risk stratification and treatment of patients with acute submassive PE, anticoagulation strategies for patients receiving thrombolysis and the use of inferior vena cava filters. Clinical vignettes were designed to assess participants' preferred choice of treatment for a variety of commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Among physicians affiliated with a PERT, there is overall agreement with regards to the criteria used for risk classification of patients with PE and its application to patients in the provided clinical vignettes. In contrast, there is substantial variability in the treatment strategies of patients presenting with commonly encountered clinical scenarios. The results of this survey highlight the need for more clinical trial data along with accepted algorithms for treatment of acute PE. In the absence of this, PERTs can facilitate multidisciplinary discussions in order to standardize treatment and provide evidence-based therapies to patients with acute PE.

Massive pulmonary embolism carries a high mortality rate as a result of right ventricular failure. In addition to anticoagulation, systemic thrombolysis is the standard first line of therapy for patients with life-threatening massive pulmonary embolism. Surgical embolectomy is often considered in patients with contraindications to receiving systemic thrombolysis or when thrombolysis has failed. Surgical embolectomy is not without inherent risk and limitations.Although there is a paucity of large clinical trials, available data suggests catheter-based treatment of massive pulmonary embolism restores hemodynamic stability and thus is an alternative to surgical therapy., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is one of the most common causes of cardiovascular (CV) mortality worldwide. Owing to the associated morbidity and mortality with other treatment modalities, including systemic thrombolysis, a discernible change in the era of acute pulmonary embolism management has been reported. Catheter-directed thrombectomy using the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical; Irvine, CA, USA) was shown to reduce endpoints of interest in patients with acute intermediate-high risk PE and was associated with rapid hemodynamic improvement. In this report, we describe our experience with three cases of patients presenting with submassive PE, whereby immediate pulmonary artery pressure improvement was evident in all cases after successful mechanical thrombectomy. Our experience supports the use of FlowTriever mechanical thrombectomy for the treatment of submassive PE in clinical practice, with a call for further research to establish associated benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]