Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Am J Med. 2020 Nov;133(11):1313-1321.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.03.058. Epub 2020 May 19.
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.
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.
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.
Pulmonary embolism response teams may increase risk stratification assessment and alter application of advanced therapies, but a mortality benefit was not identified.
急性肺栓塞的最佳管理需要多个专业的专业知识。因此,肺栓塞反应小组(PERT)的数量有所增加,但 PERT 的机构后果尚不清楚。
我们比较了在我们的机构中出现急性肺栓塞的所有患者,这些患者在形成 PERT 之前的 3 年和之后的 3 年中。主要结果是在 PERT 形成前后住院期间与肺栓塞相关的死亡率。在高危肺栓塞患者中进行了亚分析。
在 2012 年 8 月至 2018 年 8 月期间,我们机构共收治了 2042 例急性肺栓塞患者,其中 884 例(41.3%)在 PERT 实施前,1158 例(56.7%)在 PERT 实施后,其中 165 例(14.2%)由 PERT 评估。两个时期之间肺栓塞相关死亡率无差异(PERT 实施前为 2.6%,实施后为 2.9%,P=0.89)。在 PERT 实施后,通过测量心脏生物标志物和超声心动图进行了更高的风险分层评估。两组之间的高级治疗总体利用率相似(PERT 实施前为 5.4%,实施后为 5.4%,P=1.0),但全身溶栓治疗的使用率降低(3.8%) 实施前比实施后为 2.1%,P=0.02),而导管定向治疗的使用率增加(1.3%实施前比实施后为 3.3%,P=0.05)。在实施 PERT 后,下腔静脉滤器的使用减少(实施前为 10.7%,实施后为 6.9%,P=0.002)。在分析高危患者时也得出了类似的结果。
肺栓塞反应小组可能会增加风险分层评估,并改变高级治疗的应用,但没有发现死亡率的益处。