Pulmonary embolism response team implementation and its clinical value across countries: a scoping review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Over the last years, the concept of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) has been developed to encounter the increasing variety and complexity in the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but data on the use and the benefit of PERT are sparse. Purpose We aimed to systematically investigate the composition of PERT and its clinical value in clinical routine across different countries. Methods We searched PubMed, CENTRAL and Web of Science until January 2022 for full-text, prospective and retrospective observational studies, which included patients with acute PE who were evaluated by a PERT. Eligible articles were designed to either describe the structure and function of PERTs and/or to investigate outcomes related to the implementation of PERT. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of controlled studies (PERT vs. pre-PERT era) to investigate the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes and use of advanced therapies. Results We included 22 original studies and four surveys. Overall, 31.5% of patients with PE were evaluated by PERT referred mostly by emergency departments (59.4%). In total, PERT involved a median of 6 (range 2–10) specialties for guiding further diagnostic and treatment modalities. Patients evaluated by a PERT had a mean age of 60 years; of them, 48.7% were females, and 23.5% suffered from malignancy. Right ventricular dysfunction was present in 55% of the patients. In total, 74.5% were classified as intermediate-risk PE and 16% as high-risk PE. In eleven single-arm studies, 1,532 patients with intermediate- and high-risk PE were evaluated by PERT with a mortality rate of 10% and a bleeding rate of 9%. The mean length of stay was 7.3 days and the use of advanced therapy was reported in 30% of all cases. From these, catheter-directed treatment (CDT) was performed in 22% and inferior vena cava filter was inserted in 15%, while systemic thrombolysis was administered in only 6%, surgical thrombectomy in 2% and ECMO in 3% of all cases. When comparing PERT and pre-PERT era no difference in mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67–1.19, I2=63%) was observed based on nine controlled studies, while mortality tended to be lower when including only intermediate and high-risk patients in the analysis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 045–1.12) (Figure 1). The use of advanced therapies was more common (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.29–5.50) and the in-hospital stay as well as the duration of treatment in intensive care unit was shorter (mean difference −1.6 days and −1.8 days, respectively) in the PERT era. Conclusion PERT implementation tended to reduce the mortality rate in patients with intermediate- and high-risk PE and resulted in a shorter in-hospital stay. Large prospective studies are needed to further explore the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.