Search

Introduction: Prognosis and management of patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) is challenging. We investigated whether stroke volume may be used to identify the subset of this population at increased risk of clinical deterioration or PE-related death. Our secondary objective was to compare echocardiographic measurements of patients who received escalated interventions vs anticoagulation monotherapy.Methods: We selected patients with intermediate-risk PE, who had comprehensive echocardiography within 18 hours of PE diagnosis and before any escalated interventions, from a PE registry populated by 11 emergency departments. Echocardiographers measured right ventricle (RV) size, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), and stroke volume (SV) using velocity time integral (VTI) by left ventricular (LV) outflow tract Doppler or two-dimensional method of discs (MOD). The primary outcome was a composite of PE-related death, cardiac arrest, catecholamine administration for sustained hypotension, or emergency respiratory intervention during the index hospitalization. Secondary outcome was escalated intervention with reperfusion or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy.Results: Of 370 intermediate-risk PE patients (mean age 64.0 ± 15.5 years, 38.1% male), 39 (10.5%) had the primary outcome. These 39 patients had lower mean SV regardless of measurement method than those without the primary outcome: SV MOD 36.2 vs 49.9 milliliters (mL), P < 0.001; SV Doppler 41.7 vs 57.2 mL, P = 0.003; VTI 13.6 vs 17.9 centimeters [cm], P = 0.003. Patients with primary outcome also had lower mean TAPSE than those without (1.54 vs 1.81 cm, P = 0.003). Multivariable models, selecting SV as predictor, had area under the receiver operating curve of 0.8 and Brier score 0.08. The best echocardiographic predictor of our primary outcome was SV MOD (odds ratio 0.72 [0.53, 0.94], P = 0.02). Patients who received escalated interventions had significantly lower SV or surrogate measurements, greater RV dilatation, and lower RV systolic function than patients who received anticoagulation monotherapy.Conclusion: Low stroke volume was a predictor of clinical deterioration and PE-related death. Low SV may be used to identify a subset of intermediate-risk PE patients, who are higher risk (intermediate-high risk), and for whom escalated interventions should be considered.

Objectives. To characterize the association between pulmonary embolism (PE) severity and bleeding risk with treatment approaches, outcomes, and complications. Methods. Secondary analysis of an 11-hospital registry of adult ED patients treated by a PE response team (August 2016–November 2022). Predictors were PE severity and bleeding risk. The primary outcome was treatment approach: anticoagulation monotherapy vs. advanced intervention (categorized as "immediate" or "delayed" based on whether the intervention was received within 12 hours of PE diagnosis or not). Secondary outcomes were death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding. Results. Of the 1832 patients, 139 (7.6%), 977 (53.3%), and 9 (0.5%) were classified as high-risk, intermediate-high, intermediate-low, and low-risk severity, respectively. There were 94 deaths (5.1%) and 218 patients (11.9%) had one or more clinical deterioration events. Advanced interventions were administered to 86 (61.9%), 195 (27.6%), and 109 (11.2%) patients with high-risk, intermediate-high, and intermediate-low severity, respectively.Major bleeding occurred in 61/1440 (4.2%) on ACm versus 169/392 (7.6%) with advanced interventions (p <0.001): bleeding withcatheter-directed thrombolysiswas 19/145 (13.1%) versus 33/154(21.4%) with systemic thrombolysis,p= 0.07. High risk was twice as strong as intermediate-high risk for association with advanced intervention (OR: 5.3 (4.2 and 6.9) vs. 1.9 (1.6 and 2.2)). High risk (OR: 56.3 (32.0 and 99.2) and intermediate-high risk (OR: 2.6 (1.7 and 4.0)) were strong predictors of clinical deterioration. Major bleeding was significantly associated with advanced interventions (OR: 5.2 (3.5 and 7.8) for immediate, 3.3 (1.8 and 6.2)) for delayed, and high-risk PE severity (OR: 3.4 (1.9 and 5.8)). Conclusions. Advanced intervention use was associated with high-acuity patients experiencing death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding with a trend towards less bleeding with catheter-directed interventions versus systemic thrombolysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Traditional simulation‐based education prioritizes participation in simulated scenarios. The educational impact of observation in simulation‐based education compared with participation remains uncertain. Our objective was to compare the performances of observers and participants in a standardized simulation scenario. Methods: We assessed learning differences between simulation‐based scenario participation and observation using a convergent, parallel, quasi‐experimental, mixed‐methods study of 15 participants and 15 observers (N = 30). Fifteen first‐year residents from six medical specialties were evaluated during a simulated scenario (cardiac arrest due to critical hyperkalemia). Evaluation included predefined critical actions and performance assessments. In the first exposure to the simulation scenario, participants and observers underwent a shared postevent debriefing with predetermined learning objectives. Three months later, a follow‐up assessment using the same case scenario evaluated all 30 learners as participants. Wilcoxon signed rank and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare participants and observers at 3‐month follow‐up. In addition, we used case study methodology to explore the nature of learning for participants and observers. Data were triangulated using direct observations, reflective field notes, and a focus group. Results: Quantitative data analysis comparing the learners' first and second exposure to the investigation scenario demonstrated participants' time to calcium administration as the only statistically significant difference between participant and observer roles (316 seconds vs. 200 seconds, p = 0.0004). Qualitative analysis revealed that both participation and observation improved learning, debriefing was an important component to learning, and debriefing closed the learning gap between observers and participants. Conclusions: Participants and observers had similar performances in simulation‐based learning in an isolated scenario of cardiac arrest due to hyperkalemia. Findings support current limited literature that observation should not be underestimated as an important opportunity to enhance simulation‐based education. When paired with postevent debriefing, scenario observers and participants may reap similar educational benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To prospectively compare ultrasound (US) versus CXR for confirmation of central vascular catheter (CVC) placement. Secondary objective was to determine the incidence of pneumothorax (PTX) and compare US with CXR completion times.Methods: Investigators performed the US saline flush echo test, and evaluated each anterior hemithorax for pleural sliding with US after subclavian or internal jugular CVC placement.Measurements and Main Results: 151 total (135 in the emergency department, 16 in the intensive care unit) patients after CVC placement, mean age 62.1±15.6 years and 83 (55%) female patients. The rapid atrial swirl sign ( RASS) was ultrasound finding of an immediate appearance of turbulence entering the right atrium via superior vena cava after a rapid saline flush of the distal CVC port. RASS was considered 'negative' for CVC malposition. US identified all correct CVC placements. Four suboptimal CVC tip placements were detected by CXR. US identified three of these misplacements (McNemar exact p value >0.99). There were no cases of PTX or abnormal pleural sliding by either CXR or US. Median times for US and CXR completion were 1.1 (IQR 0.7) minutes and 20 (IQR: 30) minutes, respectively, median difference 23.8 (95% CI 19.6 to 29.3) minutes, p<0.0001.Conclusions: PTX and CVC tip malposition were rare after US-guided CVC placement. There was no significant difference between saline flush echo and CXR for the identification of catheter tip malposition. Benefits of US assessment for complications include reduced radiation exposure and time delays associated with CXR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To prospectively compare ultrasound (US) versus CXR for confirmation of central vascular catheter (CVC) placement. Secondary objective was to determine the incidence of pneumothorax (PTX) and compare US with CXR completion times., Methods: Investigators performed the US saline flush echo test, and evaluated each anterior hemithorax for pleural sliding with US after subclavian or internal jugular CVC placement., Measurements and Main Results: 151 total (135 in the emergency department, 16 in the intensive care unit) patients after CVC placement, mean age 62.1±15.6 years and 83 (55%) female patients. The rapid atrial swirl sign ( RASS) was ultrasound finding of an immediate appearance of turbulence entering the right atrium via superior vena cava after a rapid saline flush of the distal CVC port. RASS was considered 'negative' for CVC malposition. US identified all correct CVC placements. Four suboptimal CVC tip placements were detected by CXR. US identified three of these misplacements (McNemar exact p value >0.99). There were no cases of PTX or abnormal pleural sliding by either CXR or US. Median times for US and CXR completion were 1.1 (IQR 0.7) minutes and 20 (IQR: 30) minutes, respectively, median difference 23.8 (95% CI 19.6 to 29.3) minutes, p<0.0001., Conclusions: PTX and CVC tip malposition were rare after US-guided CVC placement. There was no significant difference between saline flush echo and CXR for the identification of catheter tip malposition. Benefits of US assessment for complications include reduced radiation exposure and time delays associated with CXR., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)