Pulmonary embolism response teams: Purpose, evidence for efficacy, and future research directions

A Brief Historical Perspective on Pulmonary Embolism

Pulmonary embolism is a major cause of mortality worldwide. In this historical perspective, we aim to provide an overview of the rich medical history surrounding pulmonary embolism. We highlight Virchow's first steps toward understanding the pathophysiology in the 1800s. We see how those insights inspired early attempts at intervention such as surgical pulmonary embolectomy and caval ligation. Those early interventions were refined and ultimately led to the development of inferior vena cava filters, the earliest clinical applications of anticoagulation, and even apparently disparate medical advances such as the successful development of cardiopulmonary bypass. We also see how the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism has evolved from rudimentary monitoring of vitals and symptoms to the development of evermore sophisticated tests such as contrast tomography angiography and echocardiography. Finally, we discuss current approaches to diagnosis, classification, and myriad treatments including anticoagulation, thrombolysis, catheter-directed interventions, surgical embolectomy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation guided by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams.

Considerations for instituting pediatric pulmonary embolism response teams: A tool kit

The incidence of pediatric pulmonary embolism (PE) has increased by 200 % in the last decade, but at a single center, it is still infrequent. Given the unique epidemiologic features of pediatric PE, diagnosis is often delayed, and the management is empiric, based on individual physician experience or preference. Thus, there is a strong need for center-specific uniform management of pediatric PE patients. In adults, the development of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) or PE critical care pathways has shortened the time to diagnosis and the initiation of definitive management. Evidence to support an improvement in PE outcomes after the development of PERTs does not exist in children. Nonetheless, we have summarized the practical practice guidelines that physicians and institutions can adopt to establish their institutional PERTs or critical pathways. We also provide strategies for resource-challenged institutions for partnering with centers with expertise in the management of pediatric PE.

Integration of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation into the Management of High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: An Overview of Current Evidence

High-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) refers to a large embolic burden causing right ventricular failure and hemodynamic instability. It accounts for approximately 5% of all cases of PE but contributes significantly to overall PE mortality. Systemic thrombolysis is the first-line revascularization therapy in high-risk PE. Surgical embolectomy or catheter-directed therapy is recommended in patients with an absolute contraindication to systemic thrombolysis. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides respiratory and hemodynamic support for the most critically ill PE patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. The complex management of these individuals requires urgent yet coordinated multidisciplinary care. In light of existing evidence regarding the utility of ECMO in the management of high-risk PE patients, a number of possible indications for ECMO utilization have been suggested in the literature. Specifically, in patients with refractory cardiac arrest, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or refractory shock, including in cases of failed thrombolysis, venoarterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) should be considered, either as a bridge to percutaneous or surgical embolectomy or as a bridge to recovery after surgical embolectomy. We review here the current evidence on the use of ECMO as part of the management strategy for the highest-risk presentations of PE and summarize the latest data in this indication.

Addressing the rising trend of high-risk pulmonary embolism mortality: Clinical and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Deaths from high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) appear to have increased in the US over the last decade. Modifiable risks contributing to this worrisome trend present opportunities for physicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers to improve care.

METHODS

We sought to contextualize contemporary, high-risk PE epidemiology and examine clinical trials, quality improvement opportunities, and healthcare policy initiatives directed at reducing mortality.

RESULTS

We observed significant and modifiable excess mortality due to high-risk PE. We identified several opportunities to improve care including: (1) rapid translation of forthcoming data on reperfusion strategies into clinical practice; (2) improved risk stratification tools; (3) quality improvement initiatives to address presumptive anticoagulation practice gaps; and (3) adoption of health policy initiatives to establish pulmonary embolism response teams and address the social determinants of health.

CONCLUSION

Addressing knowledge and practice gaps in intermediate and high-risk PE management must be prioritized and informed by forthcoming high-quality data. Implementation efforts are needed to improve acute PE management and resolve treatment disparities.

Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for the Management of Pulmonary Embolism: A Single Center Experience in a Community Hospital

Current guidelines recommend anticoagulation alone for low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) with the addition of systemic thrombolysis for high-risk PE. However, treatment recommendations for intermediate-risk PE are not well-defined. Due to bleeding risks associated with systemic thrombolysis, ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (USAT) has evolved as a promising treatment modality. USAT is thought to decrease the rate of major bleeding by using localized delivery with lower thrombolytic dosages. Currently, there is little guidance on the implementation of USAT in the real-world clinical setting. This study was designed to evaluate our experience with USAT at this single community hospital with a newly initiated Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT). All patients identified by the PERT with an acute PE diagnosed by a computed tomography (CT) scan from January 2021 to January 2023 were included. During the study period, there were 89 PERT activations with 40 patients (1 high-risk and 37 intermediate-risk PE) receiving USAT with alteplase administered at a fixed rate of 1 mg/h per catheter for 6 h. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score within 48 h after USAT. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding within 72 h. The mean age was 57.4 ± 17.4 years and 50% (n = 20) were male, 17.5% (n = 7) had active malignancy, and 20% (n = 8) had a history of prior deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or PE. The mean PESI score decreased from baseline to 48 h post-USAT (84.7 vs 74.9; p = 0.025) and there were no major bleeding events. The overall hospital length of stay was 7.5 ± 9.8 days and ICU length of stay was 2.2 ± 2.8 days. This study outlined our experience at this single community hospital which resulted in an improvement in PESI scores and no major bleeding events observed.

Implementing a Pediatric Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Model: An Institutional Experience

Pulmonary embolism is increasing in prevalence among pediatric patients; although still rare, it can create a significant risk for morbidity and death within the pediatric patient population. Pulmonary embolism presents in various ways depending on the patient, the size of the embolism, and the comorbidities. Treatment decisions are often driven by the severity of the presentation and hemodynamic effects; severe presentations require more invasive and aggressive treatment. We describe the development and implementation of a pediatric pulmonary embolism response team designed to facilitate rapid, multidisciplinary, data-driven treatment decisions and management.

Pulmonary embolism: a practical approach to update risk stratification and treatment decisions based on the guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a prevalent condition with a substantial morbi-mortality worldwide. Proper risk stratification of PE is essential for identifying the most suitable therapeutic strategy and the optimal care setting for the patient. This process entails evaluating various factors, including symptoms, comorbidities, and right heart dysfunction.

AREAS COVERED

This review assesses the tools and methods utilized to identify and stratify individuals based on the probability of developing deterioration or death related to PE. Current guidelines divide PE into three groups: high-risk (previously termed massive) PE, intermediate-risk (sub-massive) PE, and low-risk PE. Various risk scores, such as the simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI), Bova score, and the FAST score (incorporating Heart-Fatty Acid binding protein [H-ABP], Syncope, Tachycardia), aid in identifying patients at higher risk. Additionally, the Hestia score is instrumental in pinpointing low-risk patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Presently, there is a dearth of high-quality frameworks for the optimal management and treatment of PE patients at risk of hemodynamic collapse. A consortium of experts is in the process of formulating a new conceptual model for risk stratification, taking into account a comprehensive array of variables and outcomes to facilitate more individualized management of acute PE.

Shock Teams: A Contemporary Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a time-sensitive and often fatal condition. To address this issue, many centers have developed multidisciplinary shock teams with a common goal of expediting the recognition and treatment of CS. In this review, we examine the mission, structure, implementation, and outcomes reported by these early shock teams.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date, there have been four observational shock team analyses, each providing unique insight into the utility of the shock team. The limited available data supports that shock teams are associated with improved CS mortality. However, there is considerable operational heterogeneity among shock teams, and randomized data assessing their value and best practices in both local and regional care models are needed.

Sex, Racial, and Geographic Disparities in Pulmonary Embolism-related Mortality Nationwide

Rationale: Acute pulmonary embolism is a leading cause of cardiovascular death. There are limited data on the national mortality trends from pulmonary embolism. Understanding these trends is crucial for addressing the mortality and associated disparities associated with pulmonary embolism. Objectives: To analyze the national mortality trends related to acute pulmonary embolism and determine the overall age-adjusted mortality rate (AAMR) per 100,000 population for the study period and assess changes in AAMR among different sexes, races, and geographic locations. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using mortality data of individuals aged ⩾15 years with pulmonary embolism listed as the underlying cause of death in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database from January 2006 to December 2019. These data are produced by the National Center for Health Statistics. Results: A total of 109,992 pulmonary embolism-related deaths were noted in this dataset nationwide between 2006 and 2019. Of these, women constituted 60,113 (54.7%). The AAMR per 100,000 was not significantly changed, from 2.84 in 2006 to 2.81 in 2019 (average annual percentage change [AAPC], 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.1 to 0.5; P = 0.15). AAMR increased for men throughout the study period compared with women (AAPC, 0.7 for men; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.2; P = 0.004 vs. AAPC, -0.4 for women; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.3; P = 0.23, respectively). Similarly, AAMR for pulmonary embolism increased for Black compared with White individuals, from 5.18 to 5.26 (AAPC, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.0 to 0.7; P = 0.05) and 2.82 to 2.86 (AAPC, 0.0; 95% CI, -0.6 to 0.6; P = 0.99), respectively. Similarly, AAMR for pulmonary embolism was higher in rural areas than in micropolitan and large metropolitan areas during the study period (4.07 [95% CI, 4.02 to 4.12] vs. 3.24 [95% CI, 3.21 to 3.27] vs. 2.32 [95% CI, 2.30-2.34], respectively). Conclusions: Pulmonary embolism mortality remains high and unchanged over the past decade, and enduring sex, racial and socioeconomic disparities persist in pulmonary embolism. Targeted efforts to decrease pulmonary embolism mortality and address such disparities are needed.

Contemporary trends in mortality related to high-risk pulmonary embolism in US from 1999 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Population-based data on high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) mortality trends in the United States (US) are scant.

OBJECTIVES

To assess current trends in US mortality related to high-risk PE over the past 21 years and determine differences by sex, race, ethnicity, age and census region.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research (WONDER) to determine trends in age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMR) per 100,000 people, due to high-risk PE. To calculate nationwide annual trends, we assessed the average (AAPC) and annual percent change (APC) with relative 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using Joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

Between 1999 and 2019, high-risk PE was listed as the underlying cause of death in 209,642 patients, corresponding to an AAMR of 3.01 per 100,000 people (95 % CI: 2.99 to 3.02). AAMR from high-risk PE remained stable from 1999 to 2007 [APC: -0.2 %, (95 % CI: -2.0 to 0.5, p = 0.22)] and then significantly increased [APC: 3.1 % (95 % CI: 2.6 to 3.6), p < 0.0001], especially in males [AAPC: 1.9 % (95 % CI: 1.4 to 2.4), p < 0.001 vs AAPC: 1.5 % (95 % CI: 1.1 to 2.2), p < 0.001]. AAMR increase was more pronounced in those <65 years, Black Americans, and residents of rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

In an US population analysis, high-risk PE mortality rate increased, with racial, sex-based, and regional variations. Further studies are needed to understand root causes for these trends and to implement appropriate corrective strategies.

Clinical profile and outcome of isolated pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Isolated pulmonary embolism (PE) appears to be associated with a specific clinical profile and sequelae compared to deep vein thrombosis (DVT)-associated PE. The objective of this study was to identify clinical characteristics that discriminate both phenotypes, and to characterize their differences in clinical outcome.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PE phenotypes. A systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed and CENTRAL was conducted, from inception until January 27, 2023. Exclusion criteria were irrelevant content, inability to retrieve the article, language other than English or German, the article comprising a review or case study/series, and inappropriate study design. Data on risk factors, clinical characteristics and clinical endpoints were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.

Findings

Fifty studies with 435,768 PE patients were included. In low risk of bias studies, 30% [95% CI 19-42%, I ² = 97%] of PE were isolated. The Factor V Leiden [OR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.37-0.58, I ² = 0%] and prothrombin G20210A mutations [OR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.75, I ² = 0%] were significantly less prevalent among patients with isolated PE. Female sex [OR: 1.30, 95% CI 1.17-1.45, I ² = 79%], recent invasive surgery [OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.23-1.41, I ² = 65%], a history of myocardial infarction [OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.85-2.32, I ² = 0%], left-sided heart failure [OR: 1.70, 95% CI 1.37-2.10, I ² = 76%], peripheral artery disease [OR: 1.36, 95% CI 1.31-1.42, I ² = 0%] and diabetes mellitus [OR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.21-1.25, I ² = 0%] were significantly more frequently represented among isolated PE patients. In a synthesis of clinical outcome data, the risk of recurrent VTE in isolated PE was half that of DVT-associated PE [RR: 0.55, 95% CI 0.44-0.69, I ² = 0%], while the risk of arterial thrombosis was nearly 3-fold higher [RR: 2.93, 95% CI 1.43-6.02, I ² = 0%].

Interpretation

Our findings suggest that isolated PE appears to be a specific entity that may signal a long-term risk of arterial thrombosis. Randomised controlled trials are necessary to establish whether alternative treatment regimens are beneficial for this patient subgroup.

Funding

None.

A Rapid Response Team (RRT) System at a Cancer Center: Innovative Approaches to System Organization and Clinical RRT Pathways

The Rapid Response Team (RRT) system at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center led by critical care medicine (CCM) advanced practice providers (APPs) expanded exponentially between 2009 and 2021. CCM-APPs are trained for care of critically ill patients as well as to oversee rapid response calls. The RRT is composed of a CCM-based RRT-APP, respiratory therapist, RRT-RN, and nursing supervisor. Since program inception, 11 RRT pathways and interventions have been developed and adjusted to improve multidisciplinary patient management. Pathways vary in complexity and require multidisciplinary collaboration. In some circumstances, the RRT patient may require transfer to outside facilities for services not provided at our oncology-based facility. RRT data are tracked across the hospital continuum with on-line reporting through RRT website dashboards. 2021 RRT data on electronic sepsis alerts, behavioral RRT and stroke alerts are presented. The RRT program is monitored through robust quality assurance. The APP-led RRT system's scope of care has been continuously expanded through the creation of RRT pathways to meet the increasingly complex medical needs of our patients.

Blueprint for developing an effective pulmonary embolism response network

INTRODUCTION

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Portugal. It is the third most common cause of cardiovascular death after stroke and myocardial infarction. However, the management of acute PE remains poorly standardized, and there is a lack of access to mechanical reperfusion when indicated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This working group analyzed the current clinical guidelines for the use of percutaneous catheter-directed treatment in this setting and proposed a standardized approach for severe forms of acute PE. This document also proposes a methodology for the coordination of regional resources in order to create an effective PE response network, based on the hub-and-spoke organization design.

CONCLUSION

This model can be applied at the regional level, but it is desirable to extend it to the national level.

Acute Pulmonary Embolism Code and Rapid Response Teams are Necessary: A Review of Global and Mexico's Teams (MGH PERT)

Pulmonary embolism (PE) worldwide is an underdiagnosed disease; at the moment, there are no statistical data to make inferences regarding the thrombotic problem in Mexico. Although, in general, small emboli (subsegmental) are well tolerated in the pulmonary circulation, difficulties frequently occur for medium to large emboli that occlude more than 30% of the pulmonary circulation. In the United States, it is estimated that up to 100,000 PE-related deaths occur each year. A PE code consists of activating a group of specialists in PE for the consensual making of therapeutic decisions; it is beneficial for the clinical evolution of these patients and reduces their mortality; a PE response team (PERT) codes in reference hospitals to manage this disease. This report presents an updated summary of the PERT status globally and in Mexico, the explanation of why a PE code is necessary, and the effects of PERT teams in the detection (chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, chronic thromboembolic disease, and venous thromboembolism); therapeutic procedures (catheter-directed thrombolysis, systemic thrombolysis or surgical thrombectomy); selection of patients from low to high risk of PE; and future directions for PERT teams.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Changing the paradigm in the care for acute pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged as a multidisciplinary, multispecialty team of experts in the care of highly complex symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a centralized unique activation process, providing rapid multimodality assessment and risk stratification, formulating the best individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approach, streamlining the care in challenging clinical case scenarios (e.g., intermediate-high risk and high-risk PE), and facilitating the implementation of the recommended therapeutic strategies on time. PERTs are currently changing how complex acute PE cases are approached. The structure, organization, and function of a given PERT may vary from hospital to hospital, depending on local expertise, specific resources, and infrastructure for a given academic hospital center. Current emerging data demonstrate the value of PERTs in improving time to PE diagnosis; shorter time to initiation of anticoagulation reducing hospital length of stay; increasing use of advanced therapies without an increase in bleeding; and in some reports, decreasing mortality. Importantly, PERTs are positively impacting outcomes by changing the paradigm of care for acute PE through global adoption by the health-care community.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams: Theory, Implementation, and Unanswered Questions

Pulmonary embolism (PE) continues to represent a significant health care burden and its incidence is steadily increasing worldwide. Constantly evolving therapeutic options and the rarity of randomized controlled trial data to drive clinical guidelines impose challenges on physicians caring for patients with PE. Recently, PE response teams have been developed and recommended to help address these issues by facilitating a consensus among local experts while advocating the management of acute PE according to each individual patient profile. In this review, we focus on the clinical challenges supporting the need for a PE response team, report the current evidence for their implementation, assess their impact on PE management and outcomes, and address unanswered questions and future directions.

Impact of pulmonary embolism response teams on acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) on treatment choice and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is still uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of PERTs in the management and outcomes of patients with PE.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, WorldWideScience and MedRxiv were searched for original articles reporting PERT patient outcomes from 2009. Data were analysed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

16 studies comprising 3827 PERT patients and 3967 controls met inclusion criteria. The PERT group had more patients with intermediate and high-risk PE (66.2%) compared to the control group (48.5%). Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of catheter-directed interventions, systemic thrombolysis and surgical embolectomy (odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-2.53; p<0.01), similar bleeding complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37) and decreased utilisation of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p<0.01) in the PERT group. Furthermore, there was a nonsignificant trend towards decreased mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07; p=0.19) with PERTs.

CONCLUSIONS

The PERT group showed an increased use of advanced therapies and a decreased utilisation of IVC filters. This was not associated with increased bleeding. Despite comprising more severe PE patients, there was a trend towards lower mortality in the PERT group.

The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: Rationale, Operation, and Outcomes

The pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is an institutionally based multidisciplinary team that is able to rapidly assess and provide treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Intrinsic to the team's structure is a formal mechanism to execute a full range of medical, endovascular, and surgical therapies. In addition, the PERT provides appropriate multidisciplinary follow-up of patients. In the 10 years since the PERT was first introduced, it has gained acceptance in many centers in the United States and around the world. These PERTs have joined together to form an international association, called the PERT Consortium. The mission of this consortium is to advance the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with PE. There is considerable evidence that the PERT model improves delivery and standardization of care of PE patients, particularly those patients with massive and submassive PE. However, it is not yet clear whether PERTs improve clinical outcomes. A large prospective database is currently being compiled by the PERT Consortium. Analysis of this database will likely further delineate the role of PERTs in the management of intermediate-to-high risk PE patients and, importantly, help determine in which PE patients PERT may improve clinical outcomes.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Consulted by a Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: 5-Year Experience

(1) Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most frequent acute cardiovascular condition worldwide. PE response teams (PERTs) have been created to facilitate treatment implementation in PE patients. Here, we report on the 5-year experience of PERT operating in Warsaw, Poland, with regard to the characteristics and outcomes of the consulted patients. (2) Methods: Patients diagnosed with PE between September 2017 and December 2021 were included in the study. Clinical and treatment data were obtained from medical records. Patient outcomes were assessed in-hospital, at a 1- and 12-month follow-up. (3) Results: There were 235 PERT activations. The risk of early mortality was low in 51 patients (21.8%), intermediate–low in 83 (35.3%), intermediate–high in 80 (34.0%) and high in 21 (8.9%) patients. Anticoagulation alone was the most frequently administered treatment in all patient subgroups (altogether 84.7%). Systemic thrombolysis (47.6%) and interventional therapy (52%) were the prevailing treatment options in high-risk patients. The in-hospital mortality was 6.4%. The adverse events during 1-year follow-up included five deaths, two recurrent VTE and two minor bleeding events. (4) Conclusions: Our initial 5-year experience showed that the activity of the local PERT facilitated patient-tailored decision making and the access to advanced therapies, with subsequent low overall mortality and treatment complication rates, confirming the benefits of PERT implementation.

Use of artificial intelligence in emergency radiology: An overview of current applications, challenges, and opportunities

The value of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare has become evident, especially in the field of medical imaging. The accelerated pace and acuity of care in the Emergency Department (ED) has made it a popular target for artificial intelligence-driven solutions. Software that helps better detect, report, and appropriately guide management can ensure high quality patient care while enabling emergency radiologists to better meet the demands of quick turnaround times. Beyond diagnostic applications, AI-based algorithms also have the potential to optimize other important steps within the ED imaging workflow. This review will highlight the different types of AI-based applications currently available for use in the ED, as well as the challenges and opportunities associated with their implementation.

Single versus multiple and incidental versus symptomatic subsegmental pulmonary embolism: clinical characteristics and outcome

It remains unexplored if the clinical picture and outcome of subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) differ between single versus multiple, and incidental versus symptomatic embolism. Consecutive patients anticoagulated for SSPE at the Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic (03/01/2013-12/31/2020) were followed forward to assess venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence, mortality, major bleeding, and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB); expressed as a rate per 100 person-years. Among 3878 VTE patients, 1541 had pulmonary embolism including 224 (14.6%) with SSPE either single (n = 139) or multiple (n = 85; 46 bilateral and 39 unilateral emboli); 134 had incidental and 90 symptomatic SSPE. Patients with single were less often symptomatic and less often had coexisting DVT than multiple SSPE. Patients with incidental had a two-fold higher frequency of cancer compared to symptomatic SSPE. During the study period, 1 patient with single and 2 with multiple SSPE had VTE recurrence (rate of 1.14 vs 3.63, p = 0.280). Single SSPE patients experienced 2 episodes of major bleeding (rate of 2.36) while the multiple SSPE group had no major bleeding. Seven patients in each group had CRNMB events (rate of 8.20 vs 13.58 for single and multiple SSPE, respectively, p = 0.282). Patients with single SSPE had a higher death rate compared to multiple SSPE (43.07 vs 22.22, p = 0.031) but no difference was noted after adjusting for cancer (p = 0.388). Also, incidental had similar clinical outcomes to symptomatic SSPE.Interpretation Anticoagulated SSPE patients with single and multiple as well as incidental and symptomatic have a different clinical profile but similar clinical outcomes.

Development and validation of a prognostic tool: Pulmonary embolism short-term clinical outcomes risk estimation (PE-SCORE)

OBJECTIVE

Develop and validate a prognostic model for clinical deterioration or death within days of pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis using point-of-care criteria.

METHODS

We used prospective registry data from six emergency departments. The primary composite outcome was death or deterioration (respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, new dysrhythmia, sustained hypotension, and rescue reperfusion intervention) within 5 days. Candidate predictors included laboratory and imaging right ventricle (RV) assessments. The prognostic model was developed from 935 PE patients. Univariable analysis of 138 candidate variables was followed by penalized and standard logistic regression on 26 retained variables, and then tested with a validation database (N = 801).

RESULTS

Logistic regression yielded a nine-variable model, then simplified to a nine-point tool (PE-SCORE): one point each for abnormal RV by echocardiography, abnormal RV by computed tomography, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, dysrhythmia, suspected/confirmed systemic infection, syncope, medico-social admission reason, abnormal heart rate, and two points for creatinine greater than 2.0 mg/dL. In the development database, 22.4% had the primary outcome. Prognostic accuracy of logistic regression model versus PE-SCORE model: 0.83 (0.80, 0.86) vs. 0.78 (0.75, 0.82) using area under the curve (AUC) and 0.61 (0.57, 0.64) vs. 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) using precision-recall curve (AUCpr). In the validation database, 26.6% had the primary outcome. PE-SCORE had AUC 0.77 (0.73, 0.81) and AUCpr 0.63 (0.43, 0.81). As points increased, outcome proportions increased: a score of zero had 2% outcome, whereas scores of six and above had ≥ 69.6% outcomes. In the validation dataset, PE-SCORE zero had 8% outcome [no deaths], whereas all patients with PE-SCORE of six and above had the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-SCORE model identifies PE patients at low- and high-risk for deterioration and may help guide decisions about early outpatient management versus need for hospital-based monitoring.

AngioVac aspiration of right atrial cardiac pacemaker lead-associated thrombus with concurrent PE under fluoroscopic and transesophageal echocardiographic guidance: a multidisciplinary collaboration for improved patient outcome

In the U.S., pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of cardiovascular death. Right heart thrombus (RHT) occurs in approximately 4% of patients with PE, and when concurrent is associated with increased 30-day PE-related and all-cause mortality. The consensus on optimal management of acute massive or high-risk PE is unclear, and even less so for concurrent RHT. In this report, we review a successful multidisciplinary coordination of vacuum-assisted thrombectomy (VAT) of a complex pacemaker lead-associated RHT in a patient with concurrent acute PE and significant comorbidities, using the AngioVac system (Vortex Medical, Norwell, MA). VAT is a reasonable treatment option that should be considered particularly for patients who are poor surgical or thrombolytic candidates. Procedural success and patient outcomes can be further optimized through multidisciplinary collaboration such as with the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) model.

Association of Thrombin-Activatable Fibrinolysis Inhibitor with Acute Pulmonary Embolism

BACKGROUND

 Thrombin-activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor (TAFI) inhibits fibrinolysis and high levels may have an association with thrombosis. The aim of the current study was to investigate the association of TAFI antigen levels with pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 A case-control study was conducted with 29 patients with PTE and 17 age- and gender-matched control individuals. Plasma levels of TAFI were measured at the time of diagnosis, then at 3 and 6 months after the event.

RESULTS

 Initial TAFI levels (%) were higher in patients with PTE than in the control group Initial TAFI levels (%) were higher in patients with PTE than in the control group (190,0 [65,0-250,0] vs 133,0 [83,0-153,0]; p = 0.003). TAFI levels significantly decreased at the third and sixth months after initial diagnosis (p < 0.05). The percentage reductions in TAFI levels were 12 and 36.8% at 3 and 6 months, respectively. The Odss ratio (OR) of TAFI level for PTE was found to be 1.024 (95% CI: 1.007-1.040; p = 0.005). There was no significant correlation of initial TAFI levels with age, gender, smoking status, history of thrombosis, pulmonary artery pressure, and D-dimer levels (p > 0.05). In the sixth month of treatment, patients with residual thrombosis were seen to have similar baseline levels and reductions of TAFI as patients without residual thrombosis (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 The result of this study suggests that high TAFI levels may have a role in the occurrence of PTE without impact on treatment outcome.

A 44-Year-Old Woman With Chest Pain and Dyspnea

CASE PRESENTATION

A 44-year-old woman with a medical history of anti-phospholipid antibody syndrome complicated by recurrent pulmonary emboli with subsequent chronic hypoxic respiratory failure (3 L/min oxygen baseline) presented to the ED with 2 to 3 weeks of shortness of breath and pleuritic chest pain that radiated to the center of her back. These symptoms were accompanied by an increase in her oxygen requirement from 3 L/min to 6 L/min. She also reported nausea, vomiting, lightheadedness, and dizziness for the same period. The patient had two prior pulmonary emboli in the same year, which prompted a hypercoagulable workup, ultimately revealing a diagnosis of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. The second pulmonary embolus occurred while the patient was on coumadin, though achieving a therapeutic international normalized ratio was challenging. At the recommendation of the Hematology Department, she was transitioned to systemic anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg twice daily, which was her regimen at the time of admission. The patient confirmed total compliance with her anticoagulation therapy, and she denied any recent travel or long periods of being sedentary. She was up to date on her age-appropriate cancer screening, without any evidence of active malignancy.

Impact and role of pulmonary embolism response teams in venous thromboembolism associated with COVID-19

Venous thromboembolism associated with COVID-19, particularly acute pulmonary embolism, may represent a challenging and complex clinical scenario. The benefits of having a multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) can be important during such a pandemic. The aim of PERT in the care of such patients is to provide fast, appropriate, multidisciplinary, team-based approach, with the common goal to tailor the best therapeutic decision making, prioritizing always optimal patient care, especially given lack of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in the setting of COVID-19, which potentially confers a significant prothrombotic state. Herein, we would like to briefly emphasize the importance and potential critical role of PERT in the care of patients in which these two devastating illnesses are present together.

Thromboembolic Complications of SARS-CoV-2 and Metabolic Derangements: Suggestions from Clinical Practice Evidence to Causative Agents

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus (CoV)-2 is a recently identified positive sense single-strand RNA (ssRNA) β-coronavirus. The viral spike proteins infect human hosts by binding to the cellular receptor angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The infection causes a systemic illness involving cell metabolism. This widespread involvement is implicated in the pathophysiology of the illness which ranges from mild to severe, requiring multi organ support, ranging from oxygen supplementation to full cardiovascular and respiratory support. Patients with multiple co-existing comorbidities are also at a higher risk. The aim of this review is to explore the exact mechanisms by which COVID-19 affects patients systemically with a primary focus on the bleeding and thrombotic complications linked with the disease. Issues surrounding the thrombotic complications following administration of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Astra-Zeneca-Oxford) vaccine have also been illustrated. Risk stratification and treatment options in these patients should be tailored according to clinical severity with input from a multidisciplinary team.

Advanced therapies for pulmonary embolism

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Treatment options for managing patients with acute pulmonary embolism are rapidly evolving. In this review, we discuss the supporting evidence and implementation strategies for these advanced therapeutic modalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review the recent data supporting systemic and catheter directed thrombolytic therapies, mechanical embolectomy, use of extracorporeal membrane oxygen support, and pulmonary embolism response teams in managing patients with acute pulmonary embolism. We discuss the major professional society recommendations regarding their implementation.

SUMMARY

A review of advanced therapies for pulmonary embolism.

Trends in Mortality of Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Despite substantial advances in the diagnosis and management, pulmonary embolism (PE) continues to be a significant cause of mortality. In this article, we provide a concise overview of the evolution of worldwide mortality trends related to PE. Despite the data being derived mainly from observational studies, there is a clear trend toward decreasing mortality over time from PE. Whether this truly represents a treatment effect or is more related to increased diagnosis of small PEs is not fully clear. Modern approaches to PE management such as the PE response teams have the potential to further reduce the mortality from PE.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team activation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New York City Academic Hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Disproportionate Thrombotic Tendency and Management Recommendations

COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS COV-2 virus. Patients with COVID-19 are susceptible to thrombosis due to excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and circulatory stasis, resulting in an increased risk of death due to associated coagulopathies. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for pre-existing thrombotic diseases can develop COVID-19, which can further complicate dose adjustment, choice and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic treatment. This review summarizes the laboratory findings, the prohemostatic state, incidence of thromboembolic events and some potential therapeutic interventions of COVID-19 associated coagulopathy. We explore the roles of biomarkers of thrombosis and inflammation according to the severity of COVID-19. While therapeutic anticoagulation has been used empirically in some patients with severe COVID-19 but without thrombosis, it may be preferable to provide supportive care based on evidence-based randomized clinical trials. The likely lifting of travel restrictions will accelerate the spread of COVID-19, increasing morbidity and mortality across nations. Many individuals will continue to receive anticoagulation therapy regardless of their location, requiring on-going treatment with low-molecular weight heparin, vitamin K antagonist or direct-acting anticoagulants.

Massive Pulmonary Embolism with Cardiac Arrest during Routine Tibial Bypass Surgery

We report the case of a massive pulmonary embolism with intraoperative cardiac arrest in a 48-year-old male during routine surgical tibial bypass successfully managed by catheter-based interventions. Our experience supports the trending shift in pulmonary embolism therapy guidelines to include endovascular approaches and emphasizes the need for vascular surgeons to adapt their training protocols.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Position Paper From the National PERT Consortium

The coexistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pulmonary embolism (PE), two life-threatening illnesses, in the same patient presents a unique challenge. Guidelines have delineated how best to diagnose and manage patients with PE. However, the unique aspects of COVID-19 confound both the diagnosis and treatment of PE, and therefore require modification of established algorithms. Important considerations include adjustment of diagnostic modalities, incorporation of the prothrombotic contribution of COVID-19, management of two critical cardiorespiratory illnesses in the same patient, and protecting patients and health-care workers while providing optimal care. The benefits of a team-based approach for decision-making and coordination of care, such as that offered by pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs), have become more evident in this crisis. The importance of careful follow-up care also is underscored for patients with these two diseases with long-term effects. This position paper from the PERT Consortium specifically addresses issues related to the diagnosis and management of PE in patients with COVID-19.

Changes in Care for Acute Pulmonary Embolism Through A Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

Pulmonary embolism response teams may increase risk stratification assessment and alter application of advanced therapies, but a mortality benefit was not identified.

Anti-coagulant and anti-platelet therapy in the COVID-19 patient: a best practices quality initiative across a large health system

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has challenged health-care systems and physicians worldwide to attempt to provide the best care to their patients with an evolving understanding of this unique pathogen. This disease and its worldwide impact have sparked tremendous interest in the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and clinical consequences of COVID-19. This accumulating body of evidence has centered around case series and often empiric therapies as controlled trials are just getting underway. What is clear is that patients appear to be at higher risk for thrombotic disease states including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), venous thromboembolism (VTE) such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or stroke. Patients with underlying cardiovascular disease are also at higher risk for morbidity and mortality if infected. These patients are commonly treated with anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet medications and less commonly thrombolysis during hospitalization, potentially with great benefit but the management of these medications can be difficult in potentially critically ill patients. In an effort to align practice patterns across a large health system (Jefferson Health 2,622 staffed inpatient beds and 319 intensive care unit (ICU) beds across 14 facilities), a task force was assembled to address the utilization of anti-thrombotic and anti-platelet therapy in COVID-19 positive or suspected patients. The task force incorporated experts in Cardiology, Vascular Medicine, Hematology, Vascular Surgery, Pharmacy, and Vascular Neurology. Current guidelines, consensus documents, and policy documents from specialty organizations were used to formulate health system recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal is to provide guidance to the utilization of antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapies in patients with known or suspected COVID-19.

Perioperative Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Concise Review with Emphasis on Multidisciplinary Approach

Perioperative acute pulmonary embolism represents a relatively rare complication; however, it could be very serious and devastating in some cases. Its diagnosis could be particularly challenging, especially in the intraoperative period. Herein, we emphasize some key concepts with the aim to perform an early and appropriate risk stratification, diagnostic and therapeutic approach in a multidisciplinary fashion, a brief overview on thromboprophylaxis, with the main objective to improve outcomes and survival in these challenging patients.

The PERT Concept: A Step-by-Step Approach to Managing Pulmonary Embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major source of morbidity and mortality. The presentation of acute PE varies, ranging from few or no symptoms to sudden death. Patient outcome depends on how well the right ventricle can sustain the increased afterload caused by the embolic burden. Careful risk stratification is critical, and the PE response team (PERT) concept offers a rapid and multidisciplinary approach. Anticoagulation is essential unless contraindicated; thrombolysis, surgical embolectomy, and catheter-directed approaches are also available. Clinical consensus statements have been published that offer a guide to PE management, but areas remain for which the evidence is inadequate. Although the management of low-risk and high-risk patients is more straightforward, optimal management of intermediate-risk patients remains controversial. In this document, we offer a case-based approach to PE management, beginning with diagnosis and risk stratification, followed by therapeutic alternatives, and finishing with follow-up care.

Catheter-Directed Mechanical Thrombectomy in Massive Pulmonary Embolism With Cardiogenic Shock

We discuss a patient who presented with cardiogenic shock secondary to massive pulmonary embolism and right ventricular failure. She was managed by a multidisciplinary heart team and treated with catheter-directed thrombectomy, followed by ProtekDuo (Tandem [Liva Nova], London, United Kingdom) heart percutaneous right ventricular support leading to complete recovery from this often fatal condition. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.)

COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-Up: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, because of excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, the authors review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, of those with pre-existing thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 and Thrombotic or Thromboembolic Disease: Implications for Prevention, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Follow-Up: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), a viral respiratory illness caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), may predispose patients to thrombotic disease, both in the venous and arterial circulations, because of excessive inflammation, platelet activation, endothelial dysfunction, and stasis. In addition, many patients receiving antithrombotic therapy for thrombotic disease may develop COVID-19, which can have implications for choice, dosing, and laboratory monitoring of antithrombotic therapy. Moreover, during a time with much focus on COVID-19, it is critical to consider how to optimize the available technology to care for patients without COVID-19 who have thrombotic disease. Herein, the authors review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, of those with pre-existing thrombotic disease who develop COVID-19, or those who need prevention or care for their thrombotic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Value-based assessment of implementing a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT)

PERTs are a new, multidisciplinary approach to PE care. They were conceived to efficiently identify and risk stratify PE patients and standardize care delivery. More research needs to be conducted to assess the effects that PERTs have had on PE care. This study sought to determine the effects of a PERT on quality and overall value of care. This was a retrospective study of all patients 18 years of age or older who presented with a principal diagnosis of an acute PE based on available ICD codes from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2018. Patients who did not have an imaging study, i.e., CTPA or ECHO, available were excluded. Patients were divided into pre- (before October 2015) and post-PERT eras (after October 2015) and stratified based on the presence of right heart strain/dysfunction on imaging. All quality outcomes were extracted from the EMR, and cost outcomes were provided by the financial department. 530 individuals (226 pre-PERT and 304 post-PERT) were identified for analysis. Quality outcomes improved between the eras; most notably in-hospital mortality decreased (16.5 vs. 9.6) and hospital LOS decreased (7.7 vs. 4.4) (p < 0.05). Total cost of care also decreased a statistically significant amount between the eras. The implementation of a PERT improved quality and cost of care, resulting in improved value. We hypothesize that this may be due to more timely identification and risk stratification leading to earlier interventions and streamlined decision making, but further research is required to validate these findings in larger cohorts.

Rationale for catheter-based therapies in acute pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. High-risk features of PE are hypotension or shock, and early reperfusion is warranted to unload the strained right ventricle and improve clinical outcomes. Currently, systemic thrombolysis (ST) is the standard of care but is associated with bleeding complications. Catheter-based therapies (CDT) have emerged as a promising alternative having demonstrated to be equally effective while having a lower risk of bleeding. Several CDT are currently available, some combining mechanical properties with low-dose thrombolytics. Recent guidelines suggest that CDT may be considered in patients with high-risk PE who have high bleeding risk, after failed ST, or in patients with rapid haemodynamic deterioration as bail-out before ST can be effective, depending on local availability and expertise. In haemodynamically stable patients with right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (intermediate-risk PE), CDT may be considered if clinical deterioration occurs after starting anticoagulation and relative contraindications for ST due to bleeding risk exist. Decision on treatment modality should follow a risk-benefit analysis on a case by case base, weighing the risk of PE-related complications; i.e. haemodynamic deterioration vs. bleeding. As timely initiation of treatment is warranted to prevent early mortality, bleeding risk factors should be assessed at an early stage in all patients with acute PE and signs of RV dysfunction. To ensure optimal management of complex cases of PE and assess a potential CDT strategy, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended. A dedicated Pulmonary Embolism Response Team may optimize this process.

Incidental Findings of Computed Tomography Angiography in Patients Suspected to Pulmonary Embolism; a Brief Report

INTRODUCTION

Computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) scans are increasingly used in emergency department (ED). Therefore, the observation of incidental findings (IFs) has also increased. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of IFs in patients who underwent CTPA.

METHODS

All consecutive patients that underwent CTPA scanning for pulmonary embolism (PE) rule out between January 2017 and June 2018 were analysed. Incidental findings were divided into and reported in three categories: group 1 potentially life-threatening, group 2 required follow up, and group 3 with limited clinical significance.

RESULTS

151 cases with the mean age of 61.2 ± 17.6 years were studied (54.3% female). PE was documented in 77 cases (50.9%). 448 IFs were detected (3 IFs were found per patient). 60 (13.3%) IFs were classified as group 1, 180 (40.1%) as group 2, and 208 (46.6%) as group 3. Cardiomegaly was the most frequent finding in group 1 (n=32), followed by aortic aneurysm (n=13). In group 2, pleural effusion (n=58) and pneumonia (n=36) were the most frequent incidental findings. Lung structure changes (n=92) and thoracic bone related findings (n=43) were the most common IFs observed in group 3.

CONCLUSION

IFs were detected in the majority of patients that underwent CTPA. Most of these findings do not require follow-up or treatment. However, more than 50% of cases may require further diagnostic evaluation (40.1%) or immediate treatment (13.3%).