Pulmonary embolism response team for hospitalized patients with submassive and massive pulmonary embolism: A single-center experience.

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.