Multicenter Implementation of a Novel Management Protocol Increases the Outpatient Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis

Strategies to mitigate emergency department crowding and its impact on cardiovascular patients

Emergency department (ED) crowding is a worsening global problem caused by hospital capacity and other health system challenges. While patients across a broad spectrum of illnesses may be affected by crowding in the ED, patients with cardiovascular emergencies-such as acute coronary syndrome, malignant arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, acute aortic syndrome, and cardiac tamponade-are particularly vulnerable. Because of crowding, patients with dangerous and time-sensitive conditions may either avoid the ED due to anticipation of extended waits, leave before their treatment is completed, or experience delays in receiving care. In this educational paper, we present the underlying causes of crowding and its impact on common cardiovascular emergencies using the input-throughput-output process framework for patient flow. In addition, we review current solutions and potential innovations to mitigate the negative effect of ED crowding on patient outcomes.

Management and Outcomes of Adults Diagnosed with Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Primary Care: Community-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The management and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care have not been characterized.

OBJECTIVE

To describe 30-day outcomes stratified by initial site-of-care decisions DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Adults diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care in a large, diverse community-based US health system (2013-2019) MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day serious adverse events (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality). The secondary outcome was 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization, either initial or delayed.

KEY RESULTS

Among 652 patient encounters (from 646 patients), median age was 64 years; 51.5% were male and 70.7% identified as non-Hispanic white. Overall, 134 cases (20.6%) were sent home from primary care and 518 cases (79.4%) were initially referred to the emergency department (ED) or hospital. Among the referred, 196 (37.8%) were discharged home from the ED without events. Eight patients (1.2%; 95% CI 0.5-2.4%) experienced a 30-day serious adverse event: 4 venous thromboemboli (0.6%), 1 major bleed (0.2%), and 3 deaths (0.5%). Seven of these patients were initially hospitalized, and 1 had been sent home from primary care. All 3 deaths occurred in patients with known metastatic cancer initially referred to the ED, hospitalized, then enrolled in hospice following discharge. Overall, 328 patients (50.3%) were hospitalized within 7 days: 322 at the time of the index diagnosis and 6 following initial outpatient management (4 clinic-only and 2 clinic-plus-ED patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in this primary care setting uncommonly experienced 30-day adverse events, regardless of initial site-of-care decisions. Over 20% were managed comprehensively by primary care. Delayed 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization was rare among the 51% treated as outpatients. Primary care management of acute pulmonary embolism appears to be safe and could have implications for cost-effectiveness and patient care experience.

Sustainability of a Clinical Decision Support Intervention for Outpatient Care for Emergency Department Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

IMPORTANCE

Physicians commonly hospitalize patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), despite eligibility for safe outpatient management. Risk stratification using electronic health record-embedded clinical decision support systems can aid physician site-of-care decision-making and increase safe outpatient management. The long-term sustainability of early improvements after the cessation of trial-based, champion-led promotion is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sustainability of recommended site-of-care decision-making support 4 years after initial physician champion-led interventions to increase outpatient management for patients with acute PE.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 21 US community hospitals in an integrated health system. Participants included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute PE. Study sites had participated in an original decision-support intervention trial 4 years prior to the current study period: 10 sites were intervention sites, 11 sites were controls. In that trial, decision support with champion promotion resulted in significantly higher outpatient management at intervention sites compared with controls. After trial completion, all study sites were given continued access to a modified decision-support tool without further champion-led outreach. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to February 2020.

EXPOSURES

ED treatment with a modified clinical decision support tool.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was frequency of outpatient management, defined as discharge home directly from the ED, stratified by the PE Severity Index. The safety measure of outpatient care was 7-day PE-related hospitalization.

RESULTS

This study included 1039 patients, including 533 (51.3%) women, with a median (IQR) age of 65 (52-74) years. Nearly half (474 patients [45.6%]) were rated lower risk on the PE Severity Index. Overall, 278 patients (26.8%) were treated as outpatients, with only four 7-day PE-related hospitalizations (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.6%). The practice gap in outpatient management created by the earlier trial persisted in the outpatient management for patients with lower risk: 109 of 236 patients (46.2%) at former intervention sites vs 81 of 238 patients (34.0%) at former control sites (difference, 12.2; [95% CI, 3.4-20.9] percentage points; P = .007), with wide interfacility variation (range, 7.1%-47.1%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, a champion-led, decision-support intervention to increase outpatient management for patients presenting to the ED with acute pulmonary embolism was associated with sustained higher rates of outpatient management 4 years later. The application of our findings to improving sustainability of practice change for other clinical conditions warrants further study.

Can right ventricular assessments improve triaging of low risk pulmonary embolism?

OBJECTIVES

Identifying right ventricle (RV) abnormalities is important to stratifying pulmonary embolism (PE) severity. Disposition decisions are influenced by concerns about early deterioration. Triaging strategies, like the Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI), do not include RV assessments as predictors or early deterioration as outcome(s). We aimed to (1) determine if RV assessment variables add prognostic accuracy for 5-day clinical deterioration in patients classified low risk by sPESI, and (2) determine the prognostic importance of RV assessments compared to other variables and to each other.

METHODS

We identified low risk sPESI patients (sPESI = 0) from a prospective PE registry. From a large field of candidate variables, we developed, and compared prognostic accuracy of, full and reduced random forest models (with and without RV assessment variables, respectively) on a validation database. We reported variable importance plots from full random forest and provided odds ratios for statistical inference of importance from multivariable logistic regression. Outcomes were death, cardiac arrest, hypotension, dysrhythmia, or respiratory failure within 5 days of PE.

RESULTS

Of 1736 patients, 610 (35.1%) were low risk by sPESI and 72 (11.8%) experienced early deterioration. Of the 610, RV abnormality was present in 157 (25.7%) by CT, 121 (19.8%) by echocardiography, 132 (21.6%) by natriuretic peptide, and 107 (17.5%) by troponin. For deterioration, the receiver operating characteristics for full and reduced random forest prognostic models were 0.80 (0.77-0.82) and 0.71 (0.68-0.73), respectively. RV assessments were the top four in the variable importance plot for the random forest model. Echocardiography and CT significantly increased predicted probability of 5-day clinical deterioration by the multivariable logistic regression.

CONCLUSIONS

A PE triaging strategy with RV imaging assessments had superior prognostic performance at classifying low risk for 5-day clinical deterioration versus one without.

A clinical decision framework to guide the outpatient treatment of emergency department patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis: Results from a multidisciplinary consensus panel

The outpatient treatment of select emergency department patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been shown to be safe, cost effective and associated with high patient satisfaction. Despite this, outpatient PE and DVT treatment remains uncommon. To address this, the American College of Emergency Physicians assembled a multidisciplinary team of content experts to provide evidence-based recommendations and practical advice to help clinicians safely treat patients with low-risk PE and DVT without hospitalization. The emergency clinician must stratify the patient's risk of clinical decompensation due to their PE or DVT as well as their risk of bleeding due to anticoagulation. The clinician must also select and start an anticoagulant and ensure that the patient has access to the medication in a timely manner. Reliable follow-up is critical, and the patient must also be educated about signs or symptoms that should prompt a return to the emergency department. To facilitate access to these recommendations, the consensus panel also created 2 web-based "point-of-care tools."

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.

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.

Monotherapy Anticoagulation to Expedite Home Treatment of Patients Diagnosed With Venous Thromboembolism in the Emergency Department: A Pragmatic Effectiveness Trial

BACKGROUND

The objective was to test if low-risk emergency department patients with vitamin K antagonist (venous thromboembolism [VTE]; including venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism [PE]) can be safely and effectively treated at home with direct acting oral (monotherapy) anticoagulation in a large-scale, real-world pragmatic effectiveness trial.

METHODS

This was a single-arm trial, conducted from 2016 to 2019 in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies guideline in 33 emergency departments in the United States. Participants had newly diagnosed VTE with low risk of death based upon either the modified Hestia criteria, or physician judgment plus the simplified PE severity index score of zero, together with nonhigh bleeding risk were eligible. Patients had to be discharged within 24 hours of triage and treated with either apixaban or rivaroxaban. Effectiveness was defined by the primary efficacy and safety outcomes, image-proven recurrent VTE and bleeding requiring hospitalization >24 hours, respectively, with an upper limit of the 95% CI for the 30-day frequency of VTE recurrence below 2.0% for both outcomes.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1421 patients with complete outcomes data, including 903 with venous thrombosis and 518 with PE. The recurrent VTE requiring hospitalization occurred in 14/1421 (1.0% [95% CI, 0.5%-1.7%]), and bleeding requiring hospitalization occurred in 12/1421 (0.8% [0.4%-1.5%). The rate of severe bleeding using International Society for Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria was 2/1421 (0.1% [0%-0.5%]). No patient died, and serious adverse events occurred in 2.5% of venous thrombosis patients and 2.3% of patients with PE. Medication nonadherence was reported by patients in 8.0% (6.6%-9.5%) and was associated with a risk ratio of 6.0 (2.3-15.2) for VTE recurrence. Among all patients diagnosed with VTE in the emergency department during the period of study, 18% of venous thrombosis patients and 10% of patients with PE were enrolled.

CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy treatment of low-risk patients with venous thrombosis or PE in the emergency department setting produced a low rate of bleeding and VTE recurrence, but may be underused. Patients with venous thrombosis and PE should undergo risk-stratification before home treatment. Improved patient adherence may reduce rate of recurrent VTE. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03404635.

Outpatient Treatment of Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism in the Era of Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines have supported outpatient treatment of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) since 2014, but adoption of this practice has been slow. Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is now as common as vitamin K antagonist treatment, but data are sparse regarding outcomes for patients with low-risk PE treated with DOACs as outpatients. We conducted a systematic review of literature on outcomes of outpatient management for PE, including comparisons to inpatient treatment and differences by anticoagulant class.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and ICTRN for studies published from January 1980 through February 2019 using a predefined strategy developed with a medical librarian. We included English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective nonrandomized trials (NRTs) of adult patients diagnosed with acute, symptomatic PE, and discharged from the emergency department or within 48 hours. Our primary outcome included four major adverse outcomes (all-cause mortality, PE-related mortality, recurrent VTE, and major bleeding) within 30 and 90 days. A preplanned subanalysis of high-quality studies assessed outcomes associated with different anticoagulation treatment classes.

RESULTS

Our initial search identified 6,818 records, of which 12 studies (four RCT, eight NRT) with a total of 3,191 patients were included in the review. All RCTs and six NRTs were determined to have low to moderate risk of bias and were classified as high quality. Outpatients in these studies (n = 1,814) had rates of 90-day major adverse outcomes below 1%, including all-cause mortality (0.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 1.2%), PE-related mortality (0.06%, 95% CI = 0.01% to 0.3%), recurrent VTE (0.8%, 95% CI = 0.5% to 1.4%), and major bleeding (0.8%, 95% CI = 0.5% to 1.4%). Exploratory analysis revealed no association between anticoagulant treatment class and rates of major adverse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with low-risk PE treated as outpatients, few patients experienced major adverse outcomes such as mortality, recurrent VTE, or major bleeding within 90 days.

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism

Over the past decade there has been an increasing trend to manage many conditions traditionally treated during a hospital admission as outpatients. Evidence is increasing to support this approach in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). In this article, we review the current status of outpatient management of confirmed PE and present a pragmatic approach for clinical healthcare settings.

Outpatient management of pulmonary embolism should be considered in all eligible patients to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions and improve quality of carehttps://bit.ly/3mo5TX7

External validation of the modified HOPPE score to predict low risk pulmonary embolism suitable for early discharge

Objective

Recently, a novel score for risk stratification of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE)—the HOPPE score—was derived. We aimed to externally validate the HOPPE score in emergency department-diagnosed PE, using SpO₂ as a surrogate for PaO₂—the modified HOPPE score.

Methods

Retrospective observational study of adult patients with an emergency department diagnosis of PE was performed. Data collected included demographics, co-morbidities, clinical features, electrocardiogram and test results, in-hospital mortality and non-fatal major adverse clinical events (MACE; survived cardiac arrest, cardiogenic shock or thrombolysis administration). The primary outcome of interest was clinical performance of the modified HOPPE score for inhospital mortality and the composite outcome of in-hospital death and MACE. A secondary outcome was comparison of predictive performance between the modified HOPPE score and the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index score.

Results

Two hundred and six patients were studied (median age 61, 55% female). There were no deaths or MACE in patients with a low risk modified HOPPE score of 0 to 6 (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0% to 1.8%). Negative predictive value of a low risk score was 100% (95% confidence interval, 92.2% to 100%) for in-hospital mortality and for the composite of in-hospital mortality or MACE. The modified HOPPE score had similar predictive performance to the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index score with an area under the curve of 0.88 vs. 0.80 for the composite outcome of in-hospital mortality or MACE (P=0.052). Twenty-eight percent of the patients were classified as low risk and potentially suitable for management as outpatients.

Conclusion

The modified HOPPE score showed good clinical performance. Prospective validation is warranted.

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

OBJECTIVE

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

METHODS

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

RESULTS

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

DISCUSSION

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

CONCLUSION

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

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.