First year experience of a pulmonary embolism response team with comparisons of outcomes between catheter directed therapy versus standard anticoagulation

Abstract

ABSTRACTObjectives: The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) model is now widely adopted in many institutions to provide multidisciplinary care for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, descriptive experiences of PERT operations and studies on clinical outcomes remain limited.Methods: We performed a retrospective review of PERT activations at an academic tertiary care center, with secondary aims to study outcomes associated with performing catheter directed therapies (CDT).Results: The intermediate high-risk PE category was most frequent (n = 40, 76.9%) among the 52 total cases evaluated during the study period. There was one in-hospital mortality, associated with hospice admission for a non-PE diagnosis. Six patients (11.5%) experienced a bleeding complication of any severity. Anticoagulation (AC) alone was recommended in 30 patients (57.7%) and CDT was performed in 16 patients (30.8%). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics or disease severity between patients in the AC group versus the CDT group, except for a higher prevalence of malignancy in the AC group (p = 0.037). Patients who underwent CDT demonstrated a lower, albeit non-significant, median intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.34) and hospital LOS (4 vs. 5 days, p = 0.25), as compared to patients receiving AC alone. Bleeding rates were similar between the two groups (6.7% vs. 6.3%, p = 1.0).Conclusions: Adoption of the PERT model at an academic tertiary care center was associated with acceptably low rates of mortality and bleeding, similar to other published studies. Performing CDT in select patients under PERT consultation may be associated with shorter ICU and hospital LOS; however, larger studies are needed to validate this finding.