Home treatment in pulmonary embolism

[Translation into French and republication of: "Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism"]

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with venous thromboembolism and active cancer: A subanalysis of the J'xactly study

BACKGROUND

Data on the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban for the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and active cancer are limited in the Japanese real-world setting.

METHODS

In this subanalysis of the J'xactly study, which was a multicenter, prospective, observational study, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with acute VTE and active cancer (n = 193) versus those without active cancer (n = 823).

RESULTS

Compared with patients without active cancer, those with active cancer demonstrated a significantly different age distribution, with fewer aged <65 and ≥75 years; a lower proportion of women; a lower mean body mass index; and a lower proportion of physical inactivity, injury, thrombophilia, and heart failure. There was no difference in the initial dose distribution of rivaroxaban between patients with and without active cancer. The incidences of recurrence or aggravation of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding were not significantly different [VTE: 1.44 % vs. 2.80 % per patient-year, hazard ratio (HR) 0.50, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.18-1.39, p = 0.172; major bleeding: 4.49 % vs. 2.55 % per patient-year, HR 1.80, 95 % CI 0.82-3.95, p = 0.137]. Approximately 10 % of patients with active cancer died at 6 months, with a significantly higher cumulative all-cause mortality rate than those without active cancer (23.29 % vs. 2.03 % per patient-year, HR 11.31, 95 % CI 7.30-17.53, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with VTE and active cancer, rivaroxaban showed acceptable effectiveness, although clinically significant bleeding remains a concern.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number, UMIN000025072.

Home Treatment of Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: A Single Center 10-Year Experience from Ljubljana Registry

Current guidelines suggest careful risk stratification using a structured clinical approach when selecting patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. The aim of our study was to assess whether PE patients referred to home treatment are appropriately risk-stratified according to guidelines prior to referral and what the real-life course of the disease in these patients is. We included patients with confirmed PE referred to outpatient management and treated with anticoagulants between 2010 and 2019, whose data were collected in a prospective management registry. Using simplified PE severity index and/or signs of right ventricular strain, we classified patients to either appropriate or inappropriate low-risk classes for outpatient management. We compared 30-day mortality, overall mortality, and rates of recurrent thromboembolism or major bleeding between both classes. Among 278 patients, 188 (67.6%) and 90 (32.4%) were classified as appropriate or inappropriate class, respectively. In total, 30-day mortality was low in both groups: 0% in appropriate class and 1.1% in inappropriate class. The overall mortality rate was higher in the inappropriate than in the appropriate class (12.1 vs 0.9/100 patient-years, respectively, P < .001). Rates of recurrent thromboembolism and major bleeding were similar for both classes. We conclude that in real-life, a significant proportion of inappropriate low-risk class PE patients are referred to outpatient management. However, with careful follow-up, early mortality is low, even in home-treated patients inappropriately classified as low-risk.

Risk stratification for clinical severity of pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer: a narrative review and MASCC clinical guidance for daily care

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The clinical presentation and outcomes of PE range from an acute life-threatening condition requiring intensive care to a mild symptomatic condition associated with favorable outcomes and potentially candidate for early hospital discharge. The wide clinical spectrum of PE has led to the development of risk stratification models aimed at the triage of patients in emergency care departments and optimizing the utilization of health care resources. Incidental or unsuspected PE (UPE), detected during routine staging computed tomography scans, make up a significant proportion of this cohort among the oncology population. The present narrative review is aimed at examining the currently available PE risk assessment models developed for the general population and for patients with cancer including UPE. We include general recommendations for the daily care of patients with cancer-related PE and hypothesize on the factors that would potentially favor hospitalization with early discharge or ambulatory management in this setting.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people each year. For selected low-risk patients with acute PE, outpatient treatment might provide several advantages over traditional inpatient treatment, such as reduction of hospitalisations, substantial cost savings, and improvements in health-related quality of life. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 31 May 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of outpatient versus inpatient treatment of adults (aged 18 years and over) diagnosed with low-risk acute PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were short- and long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were bleeding, adverse effects, recurrence of PE, and patient satisfaction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new studies for this update. We included a total of two RCTs involving 453 participants. Both trials discharged participants randomised to the outpatient group within 36 hours of initial triage, and both followed participants for 90 days. One study compared the same treatment regimens in both outpatient and inpatient groups, and the other study used different treatment regimens. There was no clear difference in treatment effect for the outcomes of mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.98; 2 studies, 453 participants; low-certainty evidence), mortality at 90 days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58; 2 studies, 451 participants; low-certainty evidence), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.14; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.79; 1 study, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85; 2 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 2 studies, 444 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the CIs were wide and included treatment effects in both directions, the sample sizes and numbers of events were small, and it was not possible to determine the effect of missing data or the presence of publication bias. The included studies did not assess PE-related mortality or adverse effects, such as haemodynamic instability, or adherence to treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, only low-certainty evidence is available from two published randomised controlled trials on outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE. The studies did not provide evidence of any clear difference between the interventions in overall mortality, bleeding, or recurrence of PE.

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Acute Venous Thromboembolism Management: Trends and Postacute Healthcare Utilization From 2011 to 2018

Background Acute outpatient management of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), is perceived to be as safe as inpatient management in some settings. How widely this strategy is used is not well documented. Methods and Results Using MarketScan administrative claims databases for years 2011 through 2018, we identified patients with International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes indicating incident VTE and trends in the use of acute outpatient management. We also evaluated healthcare utilization and hospitalized bleeding events in the 6 months following the incident VTE event. A total of 200 346 patients with VTE were included, of whom 50% had evidence of PE. Acute outpatient management was used for 18% of those with PE and 57% of those with DVT only, and for both DVT and PE its use increased from 2011 to 2018. Outpatient management was less prevalent among patients with cancer, higher Charlson comorbidity index scores, and whose primary treatment was warfarin as compared with a direct oral anticoagulant. Healthcare utilization in the 6 months following the incident VTE event was generally lower among patients managed acutely as outpatients, regardless of initial presentation. Acute outpatient management was associated with lower hazard ratios of incident bleeding risk for both patients who initially presented with PE (0.71 [95% CI, 0.61, 0.82]) and DVT only (0.59 [95% CI, 0.54, 0.64]). Conclusions Outpatient management of VTE is increasing. In the present analysis, it was associated with lower subsequent healthcare utilization and fewer bleeding events. However, this may be because healthier patients were managed on an outpatient basis.

Randomised controlled trial of a prognostic assessment and management pathway to reduce the length of hospital stay in normotensive patients with acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

The length of hospital stay (LOS) for acute pulmonary embolism (PE) varies considerably. Whether the upfront use of a PE prognostic assessment and management pathway is effective in reducing the LOS remains unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised, controlled trial of adults hospitalised for acute PE: patients were assigned to a prognostic assessment and management pathway involving risk stratification, followed by predefined criteria for mobilisation and discharge (intervention group), or usual care (control group). The primary end point was LOS. The secondary end points were the cost of prognostic tests and of hospitalisation, and 30-day clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 500 patients who underwent randomisation, 498 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The median LOS was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3.7 to 4.2 days) in the intervention group and 6.1 days (IQR, 5.7 to 6.5 days) in the control group (p<0.001). The mean total cost of prognostic tests was €174.76 in the intervention group, as compared with €233.12 in the control group (mean difference, €-58.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], €-84.34 to €-32.40). The mean total hospitalisation cost per patient was €2085.66 in the intervention group, compared with €3232.97 in the control group (mean difference, €-1147.31; 95% CI, €-1414.97 to €-879.65). No significant differences were observed in 30-day readmissions (4.0% versus 4.8%, respectively), or all-cause (2.4% versus 2.0%) and PE-related mortality rates (0.8% versus 1.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a prognostic assessment and management pathway was effective in reducing the LOS for acute PE.

Home Treatment Compared to Initial Hospitalization in Normotensive Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism in the Netherlands: A Cost Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Venous thromboembolism constitutes substantial health care costs amounting to approximately 60 million euros per year in the Netherlands. Compared with initial hospitalization, home treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with a cost reduction. An accurate estimation of cost savings per patient treated at home is currently lacking.

AIM

 The aim of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs during the first 3 months after a PE diagnosis in patients who are treated at home versus those who are initially hospitalized.

METHODS

 Patient-level data of the YEARS cohort study, including 383 normotensive patients diagnosed with PE, were used to estimate the proportion of patients treated at home, mean hospitalization duration in those who were hospitalized, and rates of PE-related readmissions and complications. To correct for baseline differences within the two groups, regression analyses was performed. The primary outcome was the average total health care costs during a 3-month follow-up period for patients initially treated at home or in hospital.

RESULTS

 Mean hospitalization duration for the initial treatment was 0.69 days for those treated initially at home (n = 181) and 4.3 days for those initially treated in hospital (n = 202). Total average costs per hospitalized patient were €3,209 and €1,512 per patient treated at home. The adjusted mean difference was €1,483 (95% confidence interval: €1,181-1,784).

CONCLUSION

 Home treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with acute PE was associated with an estimated net cost reduction of €1,483 per patient. This difference underlines the advantage of triage-based home treatment of these patients.

Impact of a Pharmacist Intervention in the Emergency Department on the Appropriateness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Prescribed in Venous Thromboembolism Patients

BACKGROUND

It is now widely accepted to manage low risk acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the outpatient setting with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Although DOACs are straightforward to dose, they are high risk medications and not immune to medication errors. There is limited evidence that pharmacists' intervention has an impact on DOAC discharge medication errors in the ED.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if pharmacist involvement reduced the rate of DOAC discharge medication errors in low risk VTE patients.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated a clinical pharmacy service implemented prior to the study. Included patients were evaluated in 2 groups: the cohort with pharmacist involvement and the cohort without pharmacist involvement. The primary outcome was the rate of anticoagulation medication errors.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were evaluated. Of these patients, 14 had a pharmacist directly involved with their care in the ED while 44 patients did not. The rate of medication errors was lower when a pharmacist was involved, 7.1% (n = 1), compared to when a pharmacist was not involved, 36.4% (n = 16), (p = 0.046). All patients in the pharmacist involvement group received anticoagulation counseling prior to discharge compared to only 56.8% of patients in the non-pharmacist involvement group (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Our protocol for pharmacist involvement at the time of VTE diagnosis during an ED admission showed a reduced rate of anticoagulation medication errors when a pharmacist was involved. This benefit could potentially translate into improved outcomes such as readmission rates, patient safety outcomes, and hospitalizations.

Early discharge and home treatment of patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism with the oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban: an international multicentre single-arm clinical trial

AIMS

To investigate the efficacy and safety of early transition from hospital to ambulatory treatment in low-risk acute PE, using the oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a prospective multicentre single-arm investigator initiated and academically sponsored management trial in patients with acute low-risk PE (EudraCT Identifier 2013-001657-28). Eligibility criteria included absence of (i) haemodynamic instability, (ii) right ventricular dysfunction or intracardiac thrombi, and (iii) serious comorbidities. Up to two nights of hospital stay were permitted. Rivaroxaban was given at the approved dose for PE for ≥3 months. The primary outcome was symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) or PE-related death within 3 months of enrolment. An interim analysis was planned after the first 525 patients, with prespecified early termination of the study if the null hypothesis could be rejected at the level of α = 0.004 (<6 primary outcome events). From May 2014 through June 2018, consecutive patients were enrolled in seven countries. Of the 525 patients included in the interim analysis, three (0.6%; one-sided upper 99.6% confidence interval 2.1%) suffered symptomatic non-fatal VTE recurrence, a number sufficiently low to fulfil the condition for early termination of the trial. Major bleeding occurred in 6 (1.2%) of the 519 patients comprising the safety population. There were two cancer-related deaths (0.4%).

CONCLUSION

Early discharge and home treatment with rivaroxaban is effective and safe in carefully selected patients with acute low-risk PE. The results of the present trial support the selection of appropriate patients for ambulatory treatment of PE.

Comparison of Different Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism and Active Cancer

OBJECTIVE

 This article aimed to validate and compare the prognostic performance of generic scores (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and Hestia) and cancer-specific pulmonary embolism (PE)/venous thromboembolism (VTE) scales (Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica [RIETE], POMPE-C, and modified Ottawa) in PE patients with active cancer.

METHODS

 A retrospective study was conducted among 460 patients with PE and active cancer. The primary outcome was 30-day overall mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day PE-related death and overall adverse outcomes. The prognostic accuracy of clinical scores was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

 Within 30 days, 18.0% of patients died, 2.0% suffered major bleeding, and 0.2% presented recurrence of VTE. All scales showed a high area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting 30-day overall mortality except modified Ottawa (0.74 [0.70-0.78] for PESI, Hestia, and RIETE; 0.78 (0.74-0.81) for POMPE-C; 0.64 (0.59-0.68) for modified Ottawa]. PESI divided the least patients (9.1%) into low risk, followed by modified Ottawa (17.0%). Hestia stratified the most patients (65.4%) as low risk. But overall mortality of low-risk patients based on these three scales is high (>5%). RIETE and POMPE-C both classified 30.9% of patients as low risk, and low-risk patients stratified by these two scales presented a low overall mortality (1.4 and 3.5%). Similar predictive performance was found for 30-day PE-related death and overall adverse outcomes in these scores.

CONCLUSION

 Cancer-specific PE prognostic scores (RIETE and POMPE-C) performed better than generic scales (PESI and Hestia) and a cancer-specific VTE prognostic scale (modified Ottawa) in identifying low-risk PE patients with active cancer who may be suitable for outpatient treatment.

British Thoracic Society Quality Standards for outpatient management of pulmonary embolism

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the quality standards document is to provide healthcare professionals, commissioners, service providers and patients with a guide to standards of care that should be met for outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in the UK, together with measurable markers of good practice. Quality statements are based on the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guideline for the Initial Outpatient Management of Pulmonary Embolism.

METHODS

Development of BTS Quality Standards follows the BTS process of quality standard production based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence process manual for the development of quality standards.

RESULTS

Six quality statements have been developed, each describing a standard of care for the outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in the UK, together with measurable markers of good practice.

DISCUSSION

BTS Quality Standards for Outpatient Management of Pulmonary Embolism form a key part of the range of supporting materials that the society produces to assist in the dissemination and implementation of a guideline's recommendations.

Prognostic value of right ventricular dysfunction or elevated cardiac biomarkers in patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims

Patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) classified as low risk by the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), its simplified version (sPESI), or the Hestia criteria may be considered for early discharge. We investigated whether the presence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction may aggravate the early prognosis of these patients.

Methods and results

We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies including low-risk patients with acute PE to investigate the prognostic value of RV dysfunction. Diagnosis of RV dysfunction was based on echocardiography or computed tomography pulmonary angiography. In addition, we investigated the prognostic value of elevated troponin or natriuretic peptide levels. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days or during hospitalization. We included 22 studies (N = 3295 low-risk patients) in the systematic review: 21 were selected for quantitative analysis. Early all-cause mortality rates in patients with vs. without RV dysfunction on imaging were 1.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–3.5%] vs. 0.2% (95% CI 0.03–1.7%), respectively, [odds ratio (OR) 4.19, 95% CI 1.39–12.58]. For troponins, rates were 3.8% (95% CI 2.1–6.8%) vs. 0.5% (95% CI 0.2–1.3%), (OR 6.25, 95% CI 1.95–20.05). For natriuretic peptides, only data on early PE-related mortality were available: rates were 1.7% (95% CI 0.4–6.9%) vs. 0.4% (95% CI 0.1–1.1%), (OR 3.71, 95% CI 0.81–17.02).

Conclusions

In low-risk patients with acute PE, the presence of RV dysfunction on admission was associated with early mortality. Our results may have implications for the management of patients who appear at low risk based on clinical criteria alone, but present with RV dysfunction as indicated by imaging findings or laboratory markers.

Current practice patterns of outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism: A post-hoc analysis of the YEARS study

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown the safety of home treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) at low risk of adverse events. Management studies focusing on home treatment have suggested that 30% to 55% of acute PE patients could be treated at home, based on the HESTIA criteria, but data from day-to-day clinical practice are largely unavailable.

AIM

To determine current practice patterns of home treatment of acute PE in the Netherlands.

METHOD

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the YEARS study. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who were discharged <24 h and reasons for admission if treated in hospital. Further, we compared the 3-month incidence of PE-related unscheduled readmissions between patients treated at home and in hospital.

RESULTS

Of the 404 outpatients with PE included in this post-hoc analysis of the YEARS study, 184 (46%) were treated at home. The median duration of admission of the hospitalized patients was 3.0 days. The rate of PE-related readmissions of patients treated at home was 9.7% versus 8.6% for hospitalized patients (crude hazard ratio 1.1 (95% CI 0.57-2.1)). The 3-month incidence of any adverse event was 3.8% in those treated at home (2 recurrent VTE, 3 major bleedings and two deaths) compared to 10% in the hospitalized patients (3 recurrent VTE, 6 major bleedings and fourteen deaths).

CONCLUSIONS

In the YEARS study, 46% of patients with PE were treated at home with low incidence of adverse events. PE-related readmission rates were not different between patients treated at home or in hospital.

Outpatient management of pulmonary emboli: when to ambulate

Pulmonary embolism is a potentially fatal consequence of venous thromboembolism and constitutes a significant proportion of the acute medical take. Standard management has previously required admission of all patients presenting with acute pulmonary embolism for initiation of anticoagulation and initial investigations. However, clinical trial data have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of managing a subset of patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism in the outpatient setting and this has since been reflected in national guidelines. This article provides a practical overview for general physicians with regards to identifying patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism, and when and how to manage these patients on an outpatient basis.

Home treatment of patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism - An evaluation of daily practice

BACKGROUND

Home treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is challenging due to the high risk of adverse events. While home treatment is quite agreeable to cancer patients, studies evaluating the safety of VTE home treatment in this setting are largely unavailable.

METHODS

This was an observational study in patients with cancer-associated VTE. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients treated at home (hospital discharge <24 h after diagnosis) and the 3-month incidence of VTE-related adverse events (major bleeding, recurrent VTE and/or suspected VTE-related mortality) in patients managed in hospital versus at home.

RESULTS

A total of 183 outpatients were diagnosed with cancer-associated VTE: 69 had deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and 114 had pulmonary embolism (PE ± DVT). Of those, 120 (66%) were treated at home; this was 83% for patients with DVT and 55% for patients with PE (±DVT). The 3-month incidence of any VTE-related adverse event was 13% in those treated at home versus 19% in the hospitalized patients (HR 0.48; 95%CI 0.22-1.1), independent of initial presentation as PE or DVT. All-cause 3-month mortality occurred in 33 patients treated as inpatient (54%) compared to 29 patients treated at home (24%; crude HR 3.1 95%CI 1.9-5.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-third of patients with cancer-associated VTE - including PE - were selected to start anticoagulant treatment at home. Cancer-associated VTE is associated with high rates of VTE-related adverse events independent of initial in hospital or home treatment. However, home treatment may be a good option for selected patients with cancer-associated DVT or PE.

Usefulness of Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Score for Identification of Patients With Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism and Active Cancer: From the COMMAND VTE Registry

BACKGROUND

The simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score is a practical score for identification of patients with low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), although it has not been applied in patients with active cancer. The current study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the sPESI score in patients with PE and active cancer.

METHODS

The COMMAND VTE Registry is a multicenter registry enrolling consecutive patients with acute symptomatic VTE. The current study population consisted of 368 patients with PE and active cancer. The 30-day clinical outcomes were compared between patients with sPESI score = 1 and patients with sPESI scores ≥ 2.

RESULTS

Overall, 37 patients (10%) died during the 30 days after diagnosis. The cumulative 30-day incidences of mortality, and PE-related death, were lower in patients with sPESI score = 1 than in patients with sPESI scores ≥ 2 (6.3% vs 13.1%; log-rank P = .03; and 0.7% vs 3.9%; log-rank P = .046). Among patients with sPESI score = 1, the predominant cause of death was cancer. There were no significant differences in the cumulative 30-day incidence of recurrent VTE and major bleeding between the two groups (3.9% vs 5.6%; log-rank P = .46; and 6.4% vs 4.5%; log-rank P = .45).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with PE and active cancer, patients with sPESI score = 1 had a lower 30-day mortality rate compared with patients with sPESI scores ≥ 2, and they showed very low PE-related mortality risk, although the overall mortality rate remained high because of cancer-related mortality. They also showed relatively high risks for recurrence and major bleeding, suggesting the need for careful follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRY

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000021132; URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.

Reducing the hospital burden associated with the treatment of pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the most feared clinical presentation of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Patients with PE have traditionally been treated in hospital; however, many are at low risk of adverse outcomes and current guidelines suggest outpatient treatment as an option. Outpatient treatment of PE offers several advantages, including reduced risk of hospital-acquired conditions and potential cost savings. Despite this, patients with low-risk PE are still frequently hospitalized for treatment. This narrative review summarizes current guideline recommendations for the identification of patients with low-risk PE who are potentially suitable for outpatient treatment, using prognostic assessment tools (e.g. the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] and simplified PESI) and clinical exclusion criteria (e.g. Hestia criteria) alone or in combination with additional cardiac assessments. Treatment options are discussed along with recommendations for the follow-up of patients managed in the non-hospital environment. The available data on outpatient treatment of PE are summarized, including details on patient selection, anticoagulant choice, and short-term outcomes in each study. Accumulating evidence suggests that outcomes in patients with low-risk PE treated as outpatients are at least as good as, if not better than, those of patients treated in the hospital. With mounting pressures on health care systems worldwide, increasing the proportion of patients with PE treated as outpatients has the potential to reduce health care burdens associated with VTE.

Accuracy and Interobserver Reliability of the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index Versus the Hestia Criteria for Patients With Pulmonary Embolism

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to assess and compare the accuracy and interobserver reliability of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and the Hestia criteria for predicting short-term mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

This prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive eligible adults with PE diagnosed in the emergency department (ED) at a large, tertiary, academic medical center in the era January 1, 2015, to December 30, 2017. We assessed and compared sPESI and Hestia criteria prognostic accuracy for 30-day all-cause mortality after PE diagnosis and their interobserver reliability for classifying patients as low risk or high risk. Two clinician investigators scored both prediction tools during the ED evaluation. We used the kappa statistic to test for agreement.

RESULTS

The 488-patient cohort had a mean (±SD) age of 69.0 (±17.1) years and an approximately even sex distribution. The investigators classified one-quarter of patients as low risk using the sPESI and Hestia criteria (28% vs. 27%, respectively). During the 30-day follow-up, 31 of the 488 (6.4%) patients died. Patients classified as low risk according to the sPESI and the Hestia criteria had a similar 30-day mortality (sPESI 0.7% [1/135], 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.0%-4.0%; Hestia 2.3% [3/132], 95% CI = 0.5%-6.5%). The two observers had good agreement (κ = 0.80) for the Hestia criteria and very good agreement (κ = 0.97) for the sPESI.

CONCLUSION

The sPESI and the Hestia criteria had similar risk classification determination and prognostic accuracy for 30-day mortality after PE. However, the succinct and more objective sPESI had higher interobserver reliability than the Hestia criteria.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people each year. For selected low-risk patients with acute PE, outpatient treatment might provide several advantages over traditional inpatient treatment, such as reduction of hospitalisations, substantial cost savings, and improvements in health-related quality of life. This is an update of the review first published in 2014.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; adverse events such as haemodynamic instability; recurrence of PE; and patients' satisfaction.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 26 March 2018. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment of adults (aged 18 years and over) diagnosed with low-risk acute PE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analysed data. We calculated effect estimates using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

One new study was identified for this 2018 update, bringing the total number of included studies to two and the total number of participants to 451. Both trials discharged patients randomised to the outpatient group within 36 hours of initial triage and both followed participants for 90 days. One study compared the same treatment regimens in both outpatient and inpatient groups, and the other study used different treatment regimes. There was no clear difference in treatment effect for the outcomes of short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49; low-quality evidence), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99, low-quality evidence), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30; low-quality evidence) and at 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.14, P = 0.20; low-quality evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.79; P = 0.96, low-quality evidence), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51, low-quality evidence), and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04, P = 0.39; moderate-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because the CIs were wide and included treatment effects in both directions, the sample sizes and numbers of events were small, and because the effect of missing data and the absence of publication bias could not be verified. PE-related mortality, and adverse effects such as haemodynamic instability and compliance, were not assessed by the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, only low-quality evidence is available from two published randomised controlled trials on outpatient versus inpatient treatment in low-risk patients with acute PE. The studies did not provide evidence of any clear difference between the interventions in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE.

[Evaluation of the management of low-risk pulmonary embolism diagnosed in an emergency department. HoPE study (Home treatment of Pulmonary Embolism)]

INTRODUCTION

Risk stratification allows outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). Here, we carry out an evaluation of the professional practices on the emergency management of low-risk PE, after selection with the sPESI score.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

All patients admitted to the emergency department of Chambéry hospital, with a final diagnosis of PE are analyzed. The PE of score sPESI at 0 are included, in the absence of contraindications. Ninety-day follow-up is done. The objective is to evaluate the proportion of ambulatory care for low-risk patients.

RESULTS

Eighty PE were diagnosed in 2016, 28 with sPESI score at 0 and 3 patients excluded. Of the 25 inclusions, 6 patients had signs of right ventricular dysfunction and were therefore hospitalized. The remaining 19 were eligible for outpatient care but only 8 of them stayed less than 24hours in the hospital.

DISCUSSION

The sPESI score is a decision support tool for outpatient management but should not be used alone. The search for right ventricular dysfunction seems important here.

British Thoracic Society Guideline for the initial outpatient management of pulmonary embolism

The following is a summary of the recommendations and good practice points for the BTS Guideline for the initial outpatient management of pulmonary embolism. Please refer to the full guideline for full information about each section.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for pulmonary embolism: who, where and for how long?

INTRODUCTION

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a relatively common cardiopulmonary emergency that is a major cause of hospitalization and morbidity and is the primary cause of mortality associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). During the last decade, one of the biggest changes in the management of PE has been the approval of four non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs; apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) for the treatment of PE and deep vein thrombosis and secondary prevention of VTE. Areas covered: This article reviews the evolving management of PE in the NOAC era and addresses three fundamental questions: who should receive NOACs over conventional heparin/vitamin K antagonist regimens for the treatment of acute PE; should patients be treated as inpatients or outpatients; and how long should patients be treated to reduce the risk of recurrence? Expert commentary: The management of PE is changing. NOACs provide new anticoagulant treatment options for patients with PE, based on Phase III clinical study results. The consistent efficacy and safety profile of NOACs across many PE patient subgroups, including the elderly, fragile patients, those with active cancer and high-risk (right ventricular dysfunction) patients, suggests NOAC use will increase among these patients.

Home versus in-patient treatment for deep vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurs when a blood clot blocks blood flow through a vein, which can occur after surgery, after trauma, or when a person has been immobile for a long time. Clots can dislodge and block blood flow to the lungs (pulmonary embolism (PE)), causing death. DVT and PE are known by the term venous thromboembolism (VTE). Heparin (in the form of unfractionated heparin (UFH)) is a blood-thinning drug used during the first three to five days of DVT treatment. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) allow people with DVT to receive their initial treatment at home instead of in hospital. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence and complications of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients treated at home versus patients treated with standard in-patient hospital regimens. Secondary objectives included assessment of patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched 16 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and trials registries. We also checked the reference lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining home versus hospital treatment for DVT, in which DVT was clinically confirmed and was treated with LMWHs or UFH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author selected material for inclusion, and another reviewed the selection of trials. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. Primary outcomes included combined VTE events (PE and recurrent DVT), gangrene, heparin complications, and death. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and cost implications. We performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review seven RCTs involving 1839 randomised participants with comparable treatment arms. All seven had fundamental problems including high exclusion rates, partial hospital treatment of many in the home treatment arms, and comparison of UFH in hospital versus LMWH at home. These trials showed that patients treated at home with LMWH were less likely to have recurrence of VTE events than those given hospital treatment with UFH or LMWH (fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.86; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.007; low-quality evidence). No clear difference was seen between groups for major bleeding (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.36; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.27; low-quality evidence), minor bleeding (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.78; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence), or mortality (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09; 6 studies; 1708 participants; P = 0.11; low-quality evidence). The included studies reported no cases of venous gangrene. We could not combine patient satisfaction and quality of life outcomes in meta-analysis owing to heterogeneity of reporting, but two of three studies found evidence that home treatment led to greater improvement in quality of life compared with in-patient treatment at some point during follow-up, and the third study reported that a large number of participants chose to switch from in-patient care to home-based care for social and personal reasons, suggesting it is the patient's preferred option (very low-quality evidence). None of the studies included in this review carried out a full cost-effectiveness analysis. However, a small randomised economic evaluation of the two alternative treatment settings involving 131 participants found that direct costs were higher for those in the in-patient group. These findings were supported by three other studies that reported on their costs (very low-quality evidence).Quality of evidence for data from meta-analyses was low to very low. This was due to risk of bias, as many of the included studies used unclear randomisation techniques, and blinding was a concern for many. Also, indirectness was a concern, as most studies included a large number of participants randomised to the home (LMWH) treatment group who were treated in hospital for some or all of the treatment period. A further issue for some outcomes was heterogeneity that was evident in measurement and reporting of outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that patients treated at home with LMWH are less likely to have recurrence of VTE than those treated in hospital. However, data show no clear differences in major or minor bleeding, nor in mortality (low-quality evidence), indicating that home treatment is no worse than in-patient treatment for these outcomes. Because most healthcare systems are moving towards more LMWH usage in the home setting it is unlikely that additional large trials will be undertaken to compare these treatments. Therefore, home treatment is likely to become the norm, and further research will be directed towards resolving practical issues by devising local guidelines that include clinical prediction rules, developing biomarkers and imaging that can be used to tailor therapy to disease severity, and providing training for community healthcare workers who administer treatment and monitor treatment progress.

Comparison of two methods for selection of out of hospital treatment in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two clinical decision rules to select patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for outpatient treatment: the Hestia criteria and the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI). From 2008 to 2010, 468 patients with PE were triaged with the Hestia criteria for outpatient treatment: 247 PE patients were treated at home and 221 were treated as inpatients. The outcome of interest was all-cause 30-day mortality. In a post-hoc fashion, the sPESI items were scored and patients were classified according to the sPESI in low and high risk groups. Of the 247 patients treated at home, 189 (77%) patients were classified as low risk according to the sPESI and 58 patients (23%) as high risk. In total, 11 patients died during the first month; two patients treated at home and nine patients treated in-hospital. None of the patients treated at home died of fatal PE. Both the Hestia criteria and sPESI selected >50% of patients as low risk, with good sensitivity and negative predictive values for 30-day mortality: 82% and 99% for the Hestia criteria and 91% and 100% for the sPESI, respectively. The Hestia criteria and the sPESI classified different patients eligible for out-patient treatment, with similar low risks for 30-day mortality. This study suggests that the Hestia criteria may identify a proportion of high risk sPESI patiennts who can be safely treated at home, this however requires further validation.

Update on the risk stratification of acute symptomatic pulmonary thromboembolism

Early mortality in patients with pulmonary thromboembolism (PTE) varies from 2% in normotensive patients to 30% in patients with cardiogenic shock. The current risk stratification for symptomatic PTE includes 4 patient groups, and the recommended therapeutic strategies are based on this stratification. Patients who have haemodynamic instability are considered at high risk. Fibrinolytic treatment is recommended for these patients. In normotensive patients, risk stratification helps differentiate between those of low risk, intermediate-low risk and intermediate-high risk. There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefit of intensive monitoring and fibrinolytic treatment in patients with intermediate-high risk. For low-risk patients, standard anticoagulation is indicated. Early discharge with outpatient management may be considered, although its benefit has still not been firmly established.

Early discharge hospital at home

BACKGROUND

Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care. This is an update of a Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 9 January 2017: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit. We searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care for adults. We excluded obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials (N = 4746), six of them new for this update, mainly conducted in high-income countries. We judged most of the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was delivered by hospital outreach services (17 trials), community-based services (11 trials), and was co-ordinated by a hospital-based stroke team or physician in conjunction with community-based services in four trials.Studies recruiting people recovering from strokeEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality at three to six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.48, N = 1114, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hospital readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66, N = 345, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in institutional setting at six months (RR 0.63, 96% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 574, 4 trials, low-certainty evidence) and might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 795, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably reduces hospital length of stay, as moderate-certainty evidence found that people assigned to hospital at home are discharged from the intervention about seven days earlier than people receiving inpatient care (95% CI 10.19 to 3.17 days earlier, N = 528, 4 trials). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people with a mix of medical conditionsEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; N = 1247, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there was insufficient information to determine the effect of these two approaches on mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12, N = 496, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably increases the risk of hospital readmission in a mix of medical conditions, although the results are also compatible with no difference and a relatively large increase in the risk of readmission (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.58, N = 1276, 9 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). Early discharge hospital at home may decrease the risk of readmission for people with COPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, N = 496, 5 trials low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in an institutional setting (RR 0.69, 0.48 to 0.99; N = 484, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 900, low-certainty evidence). The effect of early discharge hospital at home on hospital length of stay for older patients with a mix of conditions ranged from a reduction of 20 days to a reduction of less than half a day (moderate-certainty evidence, N = 767). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people undergoing elective surgeryThree studies did not report higher rates of mortality with hospital at home compared with inpatient care (data not pooled, N = 856, low-certainty evidence; mainly orthopaedic surgery). Hospital at home may lead to little or no difference in readmission to hospital for people who were mainly recovering from orthopaedic surgery (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). We could not establish the effects of hospital at home on the risk of living in institutional care, due to a lack of data. The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). People recovering from orthopaedic surgery allocated to early discharge hospital at home were discharged from the intervention on average four days earlier than people allocated to usual inpatient care (4.44 days earlier, 95% CI 6.37 to 2.51 days earlier, , N = 411, 4 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a less expensive alternative to inpatient care, this review provides insufficient evidence of economic benefit (through a reduction in hospital length of stay) or improved health outcomes.

The Saudi Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of venous thromboembolism. Outpatient versus inpatient management

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) is commonly encountered in daily clinical practice. After diagnosis, its management frequently carries significant challenges to the clinical practitioner. Treatment of VTE with the inappropriate modality and/or in the inappropriate setting may lead to serious complications and have life-threatening consequences. As a result of an initiative of the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an expert panel led by the Saudi Association for Venous Thrombo-Embolism (a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society) and the Saudi Scientific Hematology Society with the methodological support of the McMaster University Guideline working group, this clinical practice guideline was produced to assist health care providers in VTE management. Two questions were identified and were related to the inpatient versus outpatient treatment of acute DVT, and the early versus standard discharge from hospital for patients with acute PE. The corresponding recommendations were made following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

[Outpatient management of pulmonary embolism diagnosed in emergency services]

In the emergency department, the management of patients with pulmonary embolism depends on the early mortality risk. Outpatient care is possible in low-risk patients. We present the existing scores and the strategy proposed by the North Alps Emergency Network, which uses the simplified PESI score (Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index) to select those low-risk patients, candidates for early discharge.

Home Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of Novel Oral Anticoagulants

BACKGROUND

Outpatient therapy of patients with acute pulmonary embolism has been shown to be safe in carefully selected patients. Problems related to the injection of low-molecular-weight heparin at home can be overcome by use of novel oral anticoagulants. The purpose of this investigation is to assess the prevalence of home treatment in the era of novel oral anticoagulants.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥18 years with acute pulmonary embolism seen in 5 emergency departments from January 2013 to December 2014.

RESULTS

Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in 983 patients. Among these, 237 were considered ineligible for home treatment because of instability or hypoxia. Home treatment was selected for 13 of 746 (1.7%) patients who were potentially eligible. Anticoagulant treatment for those treated at home was low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin in 9 (69.2%) and novel oral anticoagulants in 4 (30.8%). Hospitalization was chosen for 733 of 746 (98.3%). Discharge in ≤2 days was in 119 patients (16.2%). Treatment of these patients was low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin in 76 (63.9%), novel oral anticoagulants in 34 (28.6%), and in 9 (7.6%), anticoagulants were not given because of metastatic cancer or treatment was not known.

CONCLUSION

Even in the era of novel oral anticoagulants, the vast majority of patients with acute pulmonary embolism were hospitalized, and only a small proportion were discharged in ≤2 days. Although home treatment has been found to be safe in carefully selected patients, and scoring systems have been derived to identify those at low risk of adverse events, home treatment was infrequently selected.

Developments in the management and treatment of pulmonary embolism

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a serious and costly disease for patients and healthcare systems. Guidelines emphasise the importance of differentiating between patients who are at high risk of mortality (those with shock and/or hypotension), who may be candidates for thrombolytic therapy or surgery, and those with less severe presentations. Recent clinical studies and guidelines have focused particularly on risk stratification of intermediate-risk patients. Although the use of thrombolysis has been investigated in these patients, anticoagulation remains the standard treatment approach. Individual risk stratification directs initial treatment. Rates of recurrence differ between subgroups of patients with PE; therefore, a review of provoking factors, along with the risks of morbidity and bleeding, guides the duration of ongoing anticoagulation. The direct oral anticoagulants have shown similar efficacy and, in some cases, reduced major bleeding compared with standard approaches for acute treatment. They also offer the potential to reduce the burden on patients and outpatient services in the post-hospital phase. Rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban have been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism versus placebo, when given for >12 months. Patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants do not require regular coagulation monitoring, but follow-up, ideally in a specialist PE clinic in consultation with primary care providers, is recommended.

Direct oral anticoagulants have the potential to improve management of patients with pulmonary embolismhttp://ow.ly/NV7K6

Prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence for existing prognostic models in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and determine how valid and useful they are for predicting patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

OVID MEDLINE and EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library from inception to July 2014, and sources of grey literature.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies aiming at constructing, validating, updating or studying the impact of prognostic models to predict all-cause death, PE-related death or venous thromboembolic events up to a 3-month follow-up in patients with an acute symptomatic PE.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study characteristics and study quality using prognostic criteria. Studies were selected and data extracted by 2 reviewers.

DATA ANALYSIS

Summary estimates (95% CI) for proportion of risk groups and event rates within risk groups, and accuracy.

RESULTS

We included 71 studies (44,298 patients). Among them, 17 were model construction studies specific to PE prognosis. The most validated models were the PE Severity Index (PESI) and its simplified version (sPESI). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 2.3% (1.7% to 2.9%) in the low-risk group and 11.4% (9.9% to 13.1%) in the high-risk group for PESI (9 studies), and 1.5% (0.9% to 2.5%) in the low-risk group and 10.7% (8.8% to12.9%) in the high-risk group for sPESI (11 studies). PESI has proved clinically useful in an impact study. Shifting the cut-off or using novel and updated models specifically developed for normotensive PE improves the ability for identifying patients at lower risk for early death or adverse outcome (0.5-1%) and those at higher risk (up to 20-29% of event rate).

CONCLUSIONS

We provide evidence-based information about the validity and utility of the existing prognostic models in acute PE that may be helpful for identifying patients at low risk. Novel models seem attractive for the high-risk normotensive PE but need to be externally validated then be assessed in impact studies.