A Case of Massive Pulmonary Embolus Extending into a Patent Foramen Ovale: An Impending Catastrophe

Background Massive pulmonary embolus (PE) is a life-threatening condition, however thrombus in transit in the setting of patent foramen ovale (PFO) poses catastrophic risk including systemic thromboembolism. Case An 88 year-old with history of COVID-related PE in 2020 previously on anticoagulation (AC) presented with chest pain & dyspnea. She was found to have lower extremity DVTs & extensive PE in the main pulmonary arteries & its branches. Transthoracic echo (TTE) revealed severe right ventricular dysfunction & right atrial (RA) thrombus in transit that extended into a PFO with right to left shunt. She was hemodynamically stable, but hypoxic on 4L/min of oxygen with a ProBNP 7712 pg/L, Troponin T 104 ng/dl, & pulmonary embolism severity (PESI) score of 104 (10% risk of 30 day mortality). Decision-making Due to the high PESI score & thrombus burden with risk of systemic thromboembolism, a multidisciplinary PE Response Team reached a consensus to pursue urgent mechanical thrombectomy. Inari FlowTriever system was successfully used for thrombectomy & retrieval of the RA clot in transit, with rapid improvement in right sided pressures. Repeat TTE showed no residual clot or shunting. Patient was placed on AC with plan for future PFO closure. Conclusion A multidisciplinary team approach was pivotal in managing this complex case with potential for hemodynamic compromise & systemic thromboembolism. We also demonstrate that mechanical thrombectomy is a feasible strategy for retrieving RA clot in transit. [Formula presented]Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation

Early-Term Outcomes of Pulmonary Embolism Response Team

Background: Treatment of pulmonary embolism, which is a life-threatening clinical condition, varies according to the different clinical presentations and experiences of the healthcare centers. Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT) might improve outcomes of pulmonary embolism with faster evaluation and increases the usage of advanced treatment methods. In this study, the effects of PERT in the treatment of pulmonary embolism were investigated. Method(s): Patients diagnosed with pulmonary embolism in our hospital between 01.03.2019 and 28.02.2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients, who were diagnosed with PE for the first time and over 18 years of age, were included in the study. The data of the patients was obtained from the patient files. Hospitalization rates, referral rates, treatment approaches, and early-term outcomes were evaluated. Result(s): Nine-eight patients with pulmonary embolism were evaluated by the PERT during the study period. The mean age was 62.8+16.4 years and 59% were male. Nine patients had a history of fracture twelve patients had recently had Covid-19 infection and 6 patients had a history of long-term traveling. Twenty-nine patients had a proven deep venous thrombosis.All patients with intermediate-low risk were treated medically. 59.2% of the patients were hospitalized. The rate of catheterdirected thrombolysis was 37.8% (n=37). Systemic thrombolytic therapy was performed on two patients. One patient with a metastatic brain tumor was treated with low-molecular-weight heparin. Catheter-directed procedures were performed in 37 patients. The time from diagnosis to reperfusion was 243 minutes. There was one pericardial effusion and onemortality. In the 30-day follow- up there was no re-hospitalization and mortality. Conclusion(s): Treatment of pulmonary embolism still varies according to clinical experience. PERT might help with early triage and treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism. Experienced specialists in this team might contribute to clinical recovery by performing advanced treatment methods and decreasing the risk of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in the long term and improving the clinical outcomes by increasing quality of life.

SHOULD LACTATE BE INCLUDED IN ASSESSING RISK FOR ACUTE PE? A SINGLE-CENTER RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

SESSION TITLE: Late Breaking Pulmonary Vascular Disease Posters SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Posters PRESENTED ON: 10/18/2022 01:30 pm - 02:30 pm PURPOSE: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common form of thromboembolism which has a variable and non-specific presentation that can often be fatal. The Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) which includes hemodynamic parameters of perfusion has been shown to correlate with 30-day mortality in patients with acute PE. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to compare how lactate and sPESI perform in predicting clinical outcomes at our institution with the hopes of developing institutional guidelines for management of patients admitted with an acute PE. METHODS: We conducted a single center retrospective analysis on patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a new diagnosis of PE between the years 2016-2021. Patients were identified using ICD-9 CM codes. Exclusion criteria included current or prior positive testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). We performed univariate, multivariate, and ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis to assess correlations between all cause mortality, lactate, and sPESI. Both lactate and sPESI were included as continuous variables. Our covariates included age, sex, Body Mass Index, prior or current history emphysema/COPD, smoking, CKD, diabetes, cancer, atrial fibrillation, and CHF. All analysis was carried out using software R version 3.6.3. RESULTS: Of the 161 patients who were included in the study, the mean age was 60 years (SD 17 years) and 38% (61/161) were females. 31 patients (19.3%) were deceased. Mean BMI of study participants was 29.9 kg/m2. Comorbidities included 9.9% (16/161) with emphysema/COPD, 44% (71/161) with active or prior history of smoking, 6% (10/161) with CKD, 12% (20/161) with diabetes, 15% (24/161) with diagnosis of cancer, 15% (24/161) with atrial fibrillation, 15% (24/161) with history of CHF. We found that in univariate analysis, both sPESI (p=3.4*10

DIFFERENCES IN CLINICAL CHARACTERISTICS, TREATMENT, AND OUTCOME OF PULMONARY EMBOLISM ACCORDING TO COVID-19 STATUS

SESSION TITLE: Expanding Considerations in Management of Pulmonary Embolism SESSION TYPE: Rapid Fire Original Inv PRESENTED ON: 10/19/2022 11:15 am - 12:15 pm PURPOSE: Patients with COVID have an increased risk of thrombotic events including pulmonary embolism (PE). The primary objective of this study was to understand the differences in risk factors, clinical presentation, treatment modalities, and outcomes in patients with PE who were COVID positive at time of admission compared to those who were not. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PE and activated by the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) at Spectrum Health hospital system between November 2019 through January 2022 were included. Clinical, demographic, laboratory, and therapeutic characteristics were compared between patients with COVID and without COVID. Continuous variables were evaluated by t-test and categorical variables by Chi square. Survival after PE was evaluated using Kaplan Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: Of the 479 PERT-activated patients at our institution, 84 (17.5%) were diagnosed with COVID upon admission. Demographics such as age, gender, BMI, and race were similar between patients with and without COVID (all p>0.05). Patients with COVID were less likely to have PE risk factors such as recent surgery (4.8% vs 16.2%, p=0.011), recent trauma (0% vs 8.1%, p=0.014), and reduced mobility (10.7% vs 26.6%, p=0.003) although they were more likely to be recently hospitalized (19.1% vs 8.9%, p<0.001). Patients with COVID were more likely to have a fever (7.1% vs 2.5%, p=0.045), hypoxia (60.7% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), tachypnea (high respiratory rate/min of 28.2 vs 24.8, p<0.001), and lower O2 saturation (low O2 mean of 87.3 vs 90.5, p<0.001) upon presentation. Compared to non-COVID patients, mean troponin (116.5 vs 83.6 ng/ml, p=0.033) was higher in patients with COVID. There was DVT in 36.9% of COVID patients and 30.63% of non-COVID patients (p=0.321). Severity of PE was similar between COVID and non-COVID patients (massive: 18% vs. 15%;sub-massive: 70% vs. 75%, p=0.661). COVID and non-COVID patients had similar rates of thrombolysis (4.7% vs 2.3%) and catheter-based interventions (56% vs 59%). Patients with COVID had longer ICU (10 vs 5.2 days, p=0.001) and hospital stays (10 vs 6.1 days, p=0.006) compared to non-COVID patients. Major bleeding in the follow-up period was higher in the COVID group (10.7% vs 3.5%, p=0.01). There was no difference in mortality between COVID and non-COVID patients at 30 days, (11.9% vs 7.6%), 90 days (15.5% vs 10.4%), or 1 year (16.7% vs 13.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who presented with PE and COVID had less traditional risk factors for PE and were more hypoxemic and tachypneic at the time of PERT activation. They received similar treatment to non-COVID patients but had increased risk for major bleeding. There were no differences in short or intermediate term survival between COVID and non-COVID patients. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Similar severity, treatment, and mortality show promise for PE patients with COVID but bleeding complications require further investigation. DISCLOSURES: no disclosure submitted for Wael Berjaoui;Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with Bristol Myers Squibb Please note: 2015 to present Added 04/17/2022 by Trevor Cummings, value=Honoraria Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with Pfizer Please note: 2015 to present Added 04/17/2022 by Trevor Cummings, value=Honoraria Speaker/Speaker's Bureau relationship with Inari Medical Please note: 2020 to Present Added 04/16/2022 by Trevor Cummings, value=Honoraria No relevant relationships by Catherine Kelty Consultant relationship with Inari Medical Please note: July 2020 - present Added 04/02/2022 by Michael Knox, value=Consulting fee No relevant relationships by marzia leacche no disclosure submitted for Renzo Loyaga-Rendon;No relevant relationships by James Morrison No relevant relationships by Joseph Pitcher No relevant relationships by Nabin Shrestha Consultant relationship with Inari Medical Please note: 1/2021 to current Added 04/08/2022 by Erin VanDyke, value=Consulting fee No relevant relationships by Glenn VanOtteren

Discharging Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism from An Emergency Room

Background and Objectives: Patients with PE are traditionally admitted on parenteral agents, despite increasing literature that sPESI negative patients can be safely discharged from the ED. Our quality improvement initiative is focused on outpatient treatment for ED-diagnosed pulmonary emboli (OTPE) and our objective is to assess LOS, readmissions and to describe findings of our follow-up phone calls. Methods: This is an actively enrolling prospective study from 7/2020 at a single site with >500 PE cases per year with a PE Response Team (PERT). All ED PE patients are screened for OTPE. Exclusion criteria include sPESI ≥ 1, ESC high or intermediate, bleeding ≤ 30 days, hemoglobin < 8, platelet < 50,000, pregnancy, prior VTE, concomitant COVID-19, recent major surgery and social factors. Patients identified are discussed with PERT and ED physicians. If agreed upon, patients are discharged on DOAC with follow-up within one week. Patients receive calls on days 3, 7, and 30 from the OTPE team to assess AE relating to the DOAC or PE. LOS metrics are reported as mean with standard deviations, and readmissions are reported as percentages. Results: Ninety-eight low-risk patients were identified, of which 50 were OTPE-eligible with mean age 44.5 ± 16.9 years of age and 58% female. When comparing OTPE to low-risk admissions, there are no differences in age (p=0.35) and sex (p=0.72). For OTPE, the follow-up calls on day 3, 7, and 30 revealed no patient reported recurrent VTE, major bleeding or death. There was a similar ED provider to disposition LOS (p=0.74). Low-risk admissions had a higher rate of readmission than OTPE (p=0.19). Conclusion: Our OTPE process does not increase ED provider to disposition LOS, readmissions, or adverse outcomes. Future work will examine financial implications of OTPE and barriers to adoption of the process. As this is actively enrolling quality improvement initiative, we will continue to track postimplementation to optimize our process.

Should Lactate Be Included in Assessing Risk for Acute Pulmonary Embolism - A Single Center Retrospective Analysis

Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common form of thromboembolism which has a variable and non-specific presentation that can often be fatal. The Simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) which includes hemodynamic parameters of perfusion has been shown to correlate with 30-day mortality in patients with acute PE. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to compare how lactate and sPESI perform in predicting clinical outcomes at our institution with the hopes of developing institutional guidelines for management of patients admitted with an acute PE. Methods: We conducted a single center retrospective analysis on patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a new diagnosis of PE between the years 2016-2021. Patients were identified using ICD-9 CM codes. Exclusion criteria included current or prior positive testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). We performed univariant, multivariant, and ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis to assess correlations between all cause mortality, lactate elevation, and sPESI. Our covariants included age, sex, Body Mass Index, prior or current history emphysema/COPD, smoking, CKD, diabetes, cancer, atrial fibrillation, and CHF. All analysis was carried out using software R version 3.6.3. Results: Of the 161 patients who were included in the study, the mean age was 60 years (SD 17 years) and 38% (61/161) were females. 31 patients (19.3%) were deceased. Mean BMI of study participants was 29.9 kg/m2. Comorbidities included 9.9% (16/161) with emphysema/COPD, 44% (71/161) with active or prior history of smoking, 6% (10/161) with CKD, 12% (20/161) with diabetes, 15% (24/161) with diagnosis of cancer, 15% (24/161) with atrial fibrillation, 15% (24/161) with history of CHF. We found that in univariant analysis, both sPESI (p=3.4∗10∧-6, AUC = 0.74) and lactate (p=1.1∗10∧-7, AUC = 0.71) correlate with mortality. When included in the same multivariant model, both lactate (p=1.3∗10∧-5) and sPESI (p=3.2∗10∧-4) retained their statistical significance with mortality. Conclusion: As in previous studies, our analysis confirms these results (lactate p=1.1∗10∧-7;AUC = 0.71, sPESI p=3.4∗10∧-6, AUC = 0.74). However, we also demonstrate that both lactate and sPESI retain statistical significance when both are included in the same multivariant model (p-value for lactate = 1.3∗10∧-5, p-value for sPESI = 3.2∗10∧-4). Thus, both lactate and sPESI each demonstrate independent statistical significance, contributing to prediction of mortality. This finding makes a compelling case for inclusion of lactate in risk stratification models used by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) across institutions for triaging the management of acute pulmonary embolism in the hospital.

Contemporary Catheter-Based Treatment Options for Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism.

INTRODUCTION: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains an important cause of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in the USA and worldwide. Catheter-based therapies are emerging as a new armamentarium for improving outcomes in these patients. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to familiarize the clinicians with (1) various types of catheter-based modalities available for patients with acute PE, (2) advantages, disadvantages, and appropriate patient selection for the use of these devices, and (3) evidence base and the relevance of such therapies in the COVID-19 pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: There are four main types of catheter-based therapies in acute PE: (1) standard catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT), (2) ultrasound-assisted CDT, (3) pharmacomechanical CDT, and (4) mechanical thrombectomy without thrombolysis. Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis is the most widely studied modality in this group; however, evidence base for other catheter-based technologies is rapidly emerging. SUMMARY: Current use of catheter-based therapies is most suitable for patients with intermediate and high-risk acute PE. The adoption of a multidisciplinary approach like the pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is desirable for appropriate patient selection and possibly/potentially improving patient outcomes. We discuss the current status of these therapies.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited data are available on the utilization of the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) in the setting of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We performed a single-center study to evaluate treatment, mortality, and bleeding outcomes in patients who received PERT consultations in March and April 2020, compared to historical controls from the same period in 2019. Clinical data were abstracted from the electronic medical record. The primary study endpoints were inpatient mortality and GUSTO moderate-to-severe bleeding. The frequency of PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during March and April 2020 (n = 74) compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 26). During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significantly less PERT-guided invasive treatment (5.5% vs 23.1%, p = 0.02) with a numerical but not statistically significant trend toward an increase in the use of systemic fibrinolytic therapy (13.5% vs 3.9%, p = 0.3). There were nonsignificant trends toward higher in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding in patients receiving PERT consultations during the COVID-19 period compared to historical controls (mortality 14.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.18 and moderate-to-severe bleeding 35.1% vs 19.2%, p = 0.13). In conclusion, PERT utilization was nearly threefold higher during the COVID-19 pandemic than during the historical control period. Among patients evaluated by PERT, in-hospital mortality or moderate-to-severe bleeding were not significantly different, despite being numerically higher, while invasive therapy was utilized less frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Position Paper From the National PERT Consortium.

The coexistence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pulmonary embolism (PE), two life-threatening illnesses, in the same patient presents a unique challenge. Guidelines have delineated how best to diagnose and manage patients with PE. However, the unique aspects of COVID-19 confound both the diagnosis and treatment of PE, and therefore require modification of established algorithms. Important considerations include adjustment of diagnostic modalities, incorporation of the prothrombotic contribution of COVID-19, management of two critical cardiorespiratory illnesses in the same patient, and protecting patients and health-care workers while providing optimal care. The benefits of a team-based approach for decision-making and coordination of care, such as that offered by pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs), have become more evident in this crisis. The importance of careful follow-up care also is underscored for patients with these two diseases with long-term effects. This position paper from the PERT Consortium specifically addresses issues related to the diagnosis and management of PE in patients with COVID-19.

Pulmonary Embolism Response Team activation during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New York City Academic Hospital: a retrospective cohort analysis.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

Right Ventricular Clot in Transit in COVID-19: Implications for the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with a prothrombotic state in infected patients. After presenting a case of right ventricular thrombus in a patient with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), we discuss the unique challenges in the evaluation and treatment of COVID-19 patients, highlighting our COVID-19-modified pulmonary embolism response team algorithm. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).