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

Clinical controversies in the management of acute pulmonary embolism: evaluation of four important but controversial aspects of acute pulmonary embolism management that are still subject of debate and research

INTRODUCTION

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a disease with a broad spectrum of clinical presentations. While some patients can be treated at home or may even be left untreated, other patients require an aggressive approach with reperfusion treatment.

AREAS COVERED

(1) Advanced reperfusion treatment in hemodynamically stable acute PE patients considered to be at high risk of decompensation and death, (2) the treatment of subsegmental pulmonary embolism, (3) outpatient treatment for hemodynamically stable PE patients with signs of right ventricle (RV) dysfunction, and (4) the optimal approach to identify and treatpost-PE syndrome.

EXPERT OPINION

Outside clinical trials, hemodynamically stable acute PE patients should not be treated with primary reperfusion therapy. Thrombolysis and/or catheter-directed therapy are only to be considered as rescue treatment. Subsegmental PE can be left untreated in selected low-risk patients, after proximal deep vein thrombosis has been ruled out. Patients with an sPESI or Hestia score of 0 criteria can be treated at home, independent of the presence of RV overload. Finally, health-care providers should be aware of post-PE syndrome and diagnose chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease (CTEPD) as early as possible. Persistently symptomatic patients without CTEPD benefit from exercise training and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation.

Use of the National Early Warning Score for predicting deterioration of patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a post-hoc analysis of the YEARS Study

BACKGROUND

The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and the simplified PESI (sPESI) are validated scores for mortality prediction in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). National Early Warning Score (NEWS) is a general prognostic risk score for multiple clinical settings. We investigated whether the NEWS had a comparable performance with the PESI and sPESI, for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death in patients with acute PE.

METHODS

In haemodynamically stable patients with confirmed PE from the YEARS Study (2013-2015), we evaluated the performance of the NEWS, PESI and sPESI for predicting 7-day ICU admission and 30-day mortality. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 352 patients, 12 (3.4%) were admitted to the ICU and 5 (1.4%) died. The AUC of the NEWS for ICU admission was 0.80 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.94) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.00) for 30-day mortality. At a threshold of 3 points, NEWS yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 53% for ICU admission and 100% and 52% for 30-day mortality. The AUC of the PESI was 0.64 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.79) for ICU admission and 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.00) for mortality. At a threshold of 66 points, PESI yielded a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 38% for ICU admission. For mortality, these were 100% and 37%, respectively. The performance of the sPESI was similar to that of PESI.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with PESI and sPESI, NEWS adequately predicted 7-day ICU admission as well as 30-day mortality, supporting its potential relevance for clinical practice.

Epidemiology and Treatment Patterns of Venous Thromboembolism: an Observational Study of Nationwide Time-Series Trends in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies on anticoagulation treatment trends have mostly focused on hospitalized patients. This study aimed to clarify the treatment status of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Japan from 2011 to 2018, including outpatients, and to assess adherence with current guidelines.

METHODS

Data of inpatients and outpatients who were treated for VTE were extracted from a nationwide claims database (Medical Data Vision Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 79,330 patients with VTE; half were diagnosed during hospitalization for diseases other than VTE. The proportion of outpatient treatment increased significantly from 2015 to 2018 (Cochran-Armitage trend test, P < 0.0001), while 80% were anticoagulated in hospital after pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis. The proportion of patients with VTE treated as outpatients was no lower than the proportion of inpatients, even in the presence of active cancer, and there were no clear differences in anticoagulant choices. Treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) did not always include the recommended initial intensification therapy. There was wide variation in the duration of DOAC treatment and the median duration of use was shorter than that recommended in VTE treatment guidelines.

CONCLUSION

While the gradual increase in VTE outpatient treatment appears to be in line with guideline recommendations, PE outpatient treatment could be further facilitated. The large proportion of patients diagnosed with VTE during hospitalization for other conditions suggests the importance of further utilizing in-hospital manuals for thrombosis prevention. The presence or absence of cancer did not appear to affect the basic treatment strategy of anticoagulation for VTE. Future studies are expected to better define the characteristics of patients who can be safely and effectively treated in an outpatient setting, and to examine whether anticoagulation for a shorter treatment period than recommended by the guidelines or DOAC therapy without initial intensification would improve patient outcomes.

Prognostic Performance of Hestia Criteria in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous studies have suggested that Hestia criteria could effectively identifying patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who were at low risk of mortality for outpatient treatment or early discharge. But the performance of Hestia criteria in stratifying patients at different risk class is still unknown. We sought to comprehensively evaluate the prognostic impact of Hestia criteria for PE. The literatures search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE from 1 August 2011 to 31 October 2021. Finally, Eight studies with 4110 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Overall, the pool percentage of patients classified as low-risk group and high-risk group were 41.4%% and 58.6% respectively, and the all-course mortality rates of each group were 2.3% and 10.6%, respectively. The pooled rate of PE-related composite adverse outcomes in high-risk group was increasingly higher than in low-risk group (15.7% vs 4.4%). High risk group was also markedly associated with overall mortality (OR: 7.21, 95%CI: 4.96-10.46, p < 0.00001), and PE-related adverse outcomes (OR:5.38, 95% CI:3.95-7.32, p < 0.00001). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR of Hestia criteria for overall mortality were 0.90 (95% CI:0.83-0.94), 0.43 (95% CI:0.31-0.55), 1.6 (95% CI:1.3-1.9), 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15-0.35), respectively. The area under SROC curve (AUC) was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84). The result of our meta-analysis indicate that Hestia criteria can effectively identify PE patients at low risk of poor prognosis with high sensitivity and NPV, but its prognostic role in patients with higher risk class still need to be verified.

Triaging acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment by Hestia or simplified PESI criteria: the HOME-PE randomized trial

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient's opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm.

CONCLUSIONS

For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications.

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.

When I treat a patient with acute pulmonary embolism at home

Home treatment is feasible and safe in selected patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and is associated with a considerable reduction in health care costs. When establishing a PE outpatient pathway, 2 major decisions must be made. The first one concerns the selection of patients for home treatment. The second one involves dedicated outpatient follow-up including sufficient patient education and facilities for specialized follow-up visits. Current evidence points toward the use of either the Hestia criteria or Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index with/without assessment of the right ventricular function to select patients for home treatment, depending on local preferences. Results from ongoing trials are expected to enforce current guideline recommendations on home treatment and pave the way for more broad application of this elegant and cost-effective management option for patients with acute PE.