No abstract

OBJECTIVES Patients with life-threatening pulmonary emboli (PE) have traditionally been treated with anticoagulation alone, yet emerging data suggest that more aggressive therapy may improve short-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDL) and surgical pulmonary embolectomy (SPE) in the treatment of life-threatening PE. METHODS A retrospective single-centre observational study was conducted for patients who underwent SPE or CDL at a single US academic centre. Preprocedural and postprocedural echocardiographic data were collected. Unadjusted regression models were constructed to assess the significance of the between-group postoperative differences. RESULTS A total of 126 patients suffered a life-threatening PE during the study period [60 SPE (47.6%), 66 CDL 52.4%]. Ten (24.4%) SPE patients and 10 (15.2%) CDL patients had massive PEs marked by preprocedural hypotension. Six (10.0%) SPE patients and 4 (6.0%) CDL patients suffered a preprocedure cardiac arrest (P = 0.41). In-hospital mortality rate was 3.3% (2) for SPE, and 3.0% (2) for CDL (P = 0.99). SPE patients were more likely to require prolonged ventilation (15.0% vs 1.5%, P = 0.01). No significant differences were found in other major complications. At baseline echocardiography, 76.9% of SPE patients and 56.9% of CDL patients had moderate or severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Both treatment groups showed marked and durable improvement in echocardiographic markers of RV function from baseline at midterm follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Both SPE and CDL can be applied to well-selected high-risk patients with low rates of morbidity and mortality. Further research is necessary to delineate which patients would benefit most from either SPE or CDL following a life-threatening PE.

BackgroundInterhospital transfer (IHT) of patients with acute life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE) is necessary to facilitate specialized care and access to advanced therapies. Our goal was to understand what barriers and facilitators may exist during this transfer process from the perspective of both receiving and referring physicians.MethodsThis qualitative descriptive study explored physician experience taking care of patients with life threatening PE. Subject matter expert physicians across several different specialties from academic and community United States hospitals participated in qualitative semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were subsequently analyzed using inductive qualitative description approach.ResultsFour major themes were identified as barriers that impede IHT among patients with life threatening PE. Inefficient communication which mainly pertained to difficulty when multiple points of contact were required to complete a transfer. Subjectivity in the indication for transfer which highlighted the importance of physicians understanding how to use standardized risk stratification tools and to properly triage these patients. Delays in data acquisition were identified in regards to both obtaining clinical information and imaging in a timely fashion. Operation barriers which included difficulty finding available beds for transfer and poor weather conditions inhibiting transportation. In contrast, two main facilitators to transfer were identified: good communication and reliance on colleagues and dedicated team for transferring and treating PE patients.ConclusionThe most prominent themes identified as barriers to IHT for patients with acute life-threatening PE were: (1) inefficient communication, (2) subjectivity in the indication for transfer, (3) delays in data acquisition (imaging or clinical), and (4) operational barriers. Themes identified as facilitators that enable the transfer of patients were: (1) good communication and (2) a dedicated transfer team. The themes presented in our study are useful in identifying opportunities to optimize the IHT of patients with acute PE and improve patient care. These opportunities include instituting educational programs, streamlining the transfer process, and formulating a consensus statement to serve as a guideline regarding IHT of patients with acute PE.