Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial, 1006 patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism were assigned to tenecteplase or placebo in addition to standard heparin therapy. The tenecteplase group had a lower rate of hemodynamic decompensation but more frequent major hemorrhage and stroke. Acute pulmonary embolism occurs frequently and may cause death or serious disability. 1 Case fatality rates vary widely, 2 , 3 but approximately 10% of all patients with acute pulmonary embolism die within 3 months after the diagnosis. 4 , 5 Acute right ventricular pressure overload at diagnosis is an important determinant of the severity and early clinical outcome of pulmonary embolism. 6 High-risk pulmonary embolism 7 is characterized by overt hemodynamic instability and warrants immediate advanced therapy, including consideration of fibrinolysis. In contrast, for patients presenting without systemic hypotension or hemodynamic compromise, standard anticoagulation is generally considered adequate treatment. 8 However, patients who have acute right ventricular . . .

In the treatment of patients with acute pulmonary embolism, the efficacy of rivaroxaban, a factor Xa inhibitor, was similar to that of traditional anticoagulation therapy. There was less bleeding in the group receiving rivaroxaban, which supports its use in the treatment of this condition. Pulmonary embolism is a common disease, with an estimated annual incidence of 70 cases per 100,000 population. 1 , 2 The condition usually leads to hospitalization and may recur; it can be fatal. 3 For half a century, the standard therapy for most patients with pulmonary embolism has been the administration of heparin, overlapped and followed by a vitamin K antagonist. 4 , 5 This regimen is effective but complex. 5 – 9 Recently developed oral anticoagulants that are directed against factor Xa or thrombin overcome some limitations of standard therapy, including the need for injection and for regular dose adjustments on the basis of laboratory monitoring. . . .

Due to the bleeding risk of full-dose systemic thrombolysis and the lack of major trials focusing on the clinical benefits of catheter-directed treatment, heparin antiocoagulation remains the standard of care for patients with intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). The Higher-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis (HI-PEITHO) study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04790370) is a multinational multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group comparison trial. Patients with: (1) confirmed acute PE; (2) evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction on imaging; (3) a positive cardiac troponin test; and (4) clinical criteria indicating an elevated risk of early death or imminent hemodynamic collapse, will be randomized 1:1 to treatment with a standardized protocol of ultrasound-facilitated catheter-directed thrombolysis plus anticoagulation, vs anticoagulation alone. The primary outcome is a composite of PE-related mortality, cardiorespiratory decompensation or collapse, or non-fatal symptomatic and objectively confirmed PE recurrence, within 7 days of randomization. Further assessments cover, apart from bleeding complications, a broad spectrum of functional and patient-reported outcomes including quality of life indicators, functional status and the utilization of health care resources over a 12-month follow-up period. The trial plans to include 406 patients, but the adaptive design permits a sample size increase depending on the results of the predefined interim analysis. As of May 11, 2022, 27 subjects have been enrolled. The trial is funded by Boston Scientific Corporation and through collaborative research agreements with University of Mainz and The PERT Consortium. Regardless of the outcome, HI-PEITHO will establish the first-line treatment in intermediate-high risk PE patients with imminent hemodynamic collapse. The trial is expected to inform international guidelines and set the standard for evaluation of catheter-directed reperfusion options in the future.

In a trial involving patients with active cancer and venous thromboembolism, extended anticoagulation with reduced-dose apixaban was noninferior to full-dose apixaban for preventing recurrent thromboembolic events.

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) may lead to improved patient satisfaction and reduced healthcare costs. However, trials to assess its safety and the optimal method for patient selection are scarce. To validate the utility and safety of selecting patients with PE for outpatient treatment by the Hestia criteria and to compare the safety of the Hestia criteria alone with the Hestia criteria combined with N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) testing. We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in 17 Dutch hospitals. We randomized patients with PE without any of the Hestia criteria to direct discharge or additional NT-proBNP testing. We discharged the latter patients as well if NT-proBNP did not exceed 500 ng/L or admitted them if NT-proBNP was greater than 500 ng/L. The primary endpoint was 30-day adverse outcome defined as PE- or bleeding-related mortality, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or intensive care unit admission. The noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint was 3.4%. We randomized 550 patients. In the NT-proBNP group, 34 of 275 (12%) had elevated NT-proBNP values and were managed as inpatients. No patient (0 of 34) with an elevated NT-proBNP level treated in hospital (0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0-10.2%), versus no patient (0 of 23) with a post hoc-determined elevated NT-proBNP level from the direct discharge group (0%; 95% CI, 0-14.8%), experienced the primary endpoint. In both trial cohorts, the primary endpoint occurred in none of the 275 patients (0%; 95% CI, 0-1.3%) subjected to NT-proBNP testing, versus in 3 of 275 patients (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.2-3.2%) in the direct discharge group (P = 0.25). During the 3-month follow-up, recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in two patients (0.73%; 95% CI, 0.1-2.6%) in the NT-proBNP group versus three patients (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.2-3.2%) in the direct discharge group (P = 0.65). Outpatient treatment of patients with PE selected on the basis of the Hestia criteria alone was associated with a low risk of adverse events. Given the low number of patients with elevated NT-proBNP levels, this trial was unable to draw definite conclusions regarding the incremental value of NT-proBNP testing in patients who fulfill the Hestia criteria. Clinical trial registered with www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2603 (NTR2603).

The challenging clinical dilemma of detecting pulmonary embolism (PE) in suspected patients is encountered in a variety of healthcare settings. We hypothesized that the optimal diagnostic approach to detect these patients in terms of safety and efficiency depends on underlying PE prevalence, case mix, and physician experience, overall reflected by the type of setting where patients are initially assessed. The objective of this study was to assess the capability of ruling out PE by available diagnostic strategies across all possible settings. We performed a literature search (MEDLINE) followed by an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA; 23 studies), including patients from self-referral emergency care (n = 12,612), primary healthcare clinics (n = 3,174), referred secondary care (n = 17,052), and hospitalized or nursing home patients (n = 2,410). Multilevel logistic regression was performed to evaluate diagnostic performance of the Wells and revised Geneva rules, both using fixed and adapted D-dimer thresholds to age or pretest probability (PTP), for the YEARS algorithm and for the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC). All strategies were tested separately in each healthcare setting. Following studies done in this field, the primary diagnostic metrices estimated from the models were the \"failure rate\" of each strategy-i.e., the proportion of missed PE among patients categorized as \"PE excluded\" and \"efficiency\"-defined as the proportion of patients categorized as \"PE excluded\" among all patients. In self-referral emergency care, the PERC algorithm excludes PE in 21% of suspected patients at a failure rate of 1.12% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.70), whereas this increases to 6.01% (4.09 to 8.75) in referred patients to secondary care at an efficiency of 10%. In patients from primary healthcare and those referred to secondary care, strategies adjusting D-dimer to PTP are the most efficient (range: 43% to 62%) at a failure rate ranging between 0.25% and 3.06%, with higher failure rates observed in patients referred to secondary care. For this latter setting, strategies adjusting D-dimer to age are associated with a lower failure rate ranging between 0.65% and 0.81%, yet are also less efficient (range: 33% and 35%). For all strategies, failure rates are highest in hospitalized or nursing home patients, ranging between 1.68% and 5.13%, at an efficiency ranging between 15% and 30%. The main limitation of the primary analyses was that the diagnostic performance of each strategy was compared in different sets of studies since the availability of items used in each diagnostic strategy differed across included studies; however, sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were robust. The capability of safely and efficiently ruling out PE of available diagnostic strategies differs for different healthcare settings. The findings of this IPD MA help in determining the optimum diagnostic strategies for ruling out PE per healthcare setting, balancing the trade-off between failure rate and efficiency of each strategy.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) presents a spectrum of hemodynamic consequences, ranging from being asymptomatic to a life-threatening medical emergency. Management of submassive and massive PE often involves clinicians from multiple specialties, which can potentially delay the development of a unified treatment plan. In addition, patients with submassive PE can deteriorate after their presentation and require escalation of care. Underlying comorbidities such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, congestive heart failure, and interstitial lung disease can impact the patient's hemodynamic ability to tolerate submassive PE. In this review, we address the definitions, risk stratification (clinical, laboratory, and imaging), management approaches, and long-term outcomes of submassive PE. We also discuss the role of the PE response team in management of patients with PE.

PurposeLittle evidence of increased thrombotic risk is available in COVID-19 patients. Our purpose was to assess thrombotic risk in severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsAll patients referred to 4 intensive care units (ICUs) from two centers of a French tertiary hospital for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 between March 3rd and 31st 2020 were included. Medical history, symptoms, biological data and imaging were prospectively collected. Propensity score matching was performed to analyze the occurrence of thromboembolic events between non-COVID-19 ARDS and COVID-19 ARDS patients.Results150 COVID-19 patients were included (122 men, median age 63 [53; 71] years, SAPSII 49 [37; 64] points). Sixty-four clinically relevant thrombotic complications were diagnosed in 150 patients, mainly pulmonary embolisms (16.7%). 28/29 patients (96.6%) receiving continuous renal replacement therapy experienced circuit clotting. Three thrombotic occlusions (in 2 patients) of centrifugal pump occurred in 12 patients (8%) supported by ECMO. Most patients (> 95%) had elevated D-dimer and fibrinogen. No patient developed disseminated intravascular coagulation. Von Willebrand (vWF) activity, vWF antigen and FVIII were considerably increased, and 50/57 tested patients (87.7%) had positive lupus anticoagulant. Comparison with non-COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 145) confirmed that COVID-19 ARDS patients (n = 77) developed significantly more thrombotic complications, mainly pulmonary embolisms (11.7 vs. 2.1%, p < 0.008). Coagulation parameters significantly differed between the two groups.ConclusionDespite anticoagulation, a high number of patients with ARDS secondary to COVID-19 developed life-threatening thrombotic complications. Higher anticoagulation targets than in usual critically ill patients should therefore probably be suggested.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There have been many advances in the field of PE in the last few years, requiring a careful assessment of their impact on patient care. However, variations in recommendations by different clinical guidelines, as well as lack of robust clinical trials, make clinical decisions challenging. The Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium is an international association created to advance the diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of patients with PE. In this consensus practice document, we provide a comprehensive review of the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of acute PE, including both clinical data and consensus opinion to provide guidance for clinicians caring for these patients.

Validated diagnostic algorithms in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism are often not used correctly or only benefit subgroups of patients, leading to overuse of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). The YEARS clinical decision rule that incorporates differential D-dimer cutoff values at presentation, has been developed to be fast, to be compatible with clinical practice, and to reduce the number of CTPA investigations in all age groups. We aimed to prospectively evaluate this novel and simplified diagnostic algorithm for suspected acute pulmonary embolism. We did a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, including consecutive patients with suspected pulmonary embolism between Oct 5, 2013, to July 9, 2015. Patients were managed by simultaneous assessment of the YEARS clinical decision rule, consisting of three items (clinical signs of deep vein thrombosis, haemoptysis, and whether pulmonary embolism is the most likely diagnosis), and D-dimer concentrations. In patients without YEARS items and D-dimer less than 1000 ng/mL, or in patients with one or more YEARS items and D-dimer less than 500 ng/mL, pulmonary embolism was considered excluded. All other patients had CTPA. The primary outcome was the number of independently adjudicated events of venous thromboembolism during 3 months of follow-up after pulmonary embolism was excluded, and the secondary outcome was the number of required CTPA compared with the Wells' diagnostic algorithm. For the primary outcome regarding the safety of the diagnostic strategy, we used a per-protocol approach. For the secondary outcome regarding the efficiency of the diagnostic strategy, we used an intention-to-diagnose approach. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, number NTR4193. 3616 consecutive patients with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism were screened, of whom 151 (4%) were excluded. The remaining 3465 patients were assessed of whom 456 (13%) were diagnosed with pulmonary embolism at baseline. Of the 2946 patients (85%) in whom pulmonary embolism was ruled out at baseline and remained untreated, 18 patients were diagnosed with symptomatic venous thromboembolism during 3-month follow-up (0·61%, 95% CI 0·36–0·96) of whom six had fatal pulmonary embolism (0·20%, 0·07–0·44). CTPA was not indicated in 1651 (48%) patients with the YEARS algorithm compared with 1174 (34%) patients, if Wells' rule and fixed D-dimer threshold of less than 500 ng/mL would have been applied, a difference of 14% (95% CI 12–16). In our study pulmonary embolism was safely excluded by the YEARS diagnostic algorithm in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism. The main advantage of the YEARS algorithm in our patients is the absolute 14% decrease of CTPA examinations in all ages and across several relevant subgroups. This study was supported by unrestricted grants from the participating hospitals.