Impact of a pulmonary embolism response team initiative on hospital mortality of patients with bilateral pulmonary embolism

Abstract

IntroductionPulmonary embolism (PE) response teams (PERT) for the management of high-risk PE (HR-PE) and intermediate-high risk PE (IHR-PE) are encouraged in PE guidelines. We aimed to assess the impact of a PERT initiative on mortality in these groups of patients, compared with standard care. MethodsWe conducted a prospective, single-center registry, including consecutive patients with HR-PE and IHR-PE with PERT activation from February-2018 to December-2020 (PERT group, n=78 patients) and compared it with an historic cohort of patients admitted to our hospital in a previous 2-year period (2014–2016), managed with standard of care (SC-group, n=108 patients). ResultsPatients in the PERT group were younger and less comorbid. The risk profile at admission and the percentage of HR-PE was similar in both cohorts (13% in SC-group and 14% in PERT-group, p=0.82). Reperfusion therapy was more frequently indicated in PERT-group (24.4% vs 10.2%, p=0.01), with no differences in fibrinolysis treatment, while catheter-directed therapy (CDT) was more frequent in PERT group (16.7% vs 1.9%, p<0.001). Reperfusion and CDT were associated with lower in-hospital mortality (2.9% vs 15.1%, p=0.001 for reperfusion and 1.5% vs 16.5%, p=0.001 for CDT). The primary outcome, 12-month mortality, was lower in the PERT-group (9% vs 22.2%, p=0.02), There were no differences in 30-day readmissions. In multivariate analysis PERT activation was associated with lower mortality at 12 months (HR 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.09–0.7, p=0.008). ConclusionA PERT initiative in patients with HR-PE and IHR-PE was associated with a significant reduction in 12-month mortality compared with standard of care, and also with an increase in the use of reperfusion, especially catheter-directed therapies.