A multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response team (PERT): first experience from a single center in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few years, the concept of multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) has emerged to encounter the increasing variety and complexity in managing acute pulmonary embolism (PE). PURPOSE: To investigate PERT's composition and added clinical value in a university center in Germany. METHODS: Over 4 years (01/2019-11/2022), patients with confirmed PE were enrolled in a prospective single-center cohort study (PERT Mainz). We investigated the composition of PERT and compared, after propensity score matching, patients with acute PE before and after the initiation of PERT at our Medical University Centre. The primary outcome was in-hospital PE-related mortality. RESULTS: From 2019 to 2022, 88 patients with acute PE with a PERT decision were registered. Of those, 13 (14.8%) patients died during the in-hospital stay. Patients evaluated by a PERT had a median age of 68; 48.9% were females, and 21.7% suffered from malignancy. Right ventricular dysfunction was present in 76.1% of all patients. In total, 42.0% were classified as intermediate-high-risk PE and 11.4% as high-risk PE. First PERT contact mainly originated from emergency departments (33.3%) and intensive care units (30.0%), followed by chest pain units (21.3%) and regular wards (12.0%). The participation rate of medical specialties demonstrated that cardiologists (100%) or cardiac/vascular surgeons (98.6%) were included in almost all PERT consultations, followed by radiologists (95.9%) and anesthesiologists (87.8%). Compared to the PERT era, more patients in the pre-PERT era were classified as simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI) ≥ 1 (78.4% vs 71.6%) and as high-risk PE according to ESC 2019 guidelines (18.2% vs. 11.4%). In the pre-PERT era, low- and intermediate-low patients with PE received more frequently advanced reperfusion therapies such as systemic thrombolysis or surgical embolectomy compared to the PERT era (10.7% vs. 2.5%). Patients in the pre-PERT were found to have a considerably higher all-cause mortality and PE-related mortality rate (31.8% vs. 14.8%) compared to patients in the PERT era (22.7% vs. 13.6%). After propensity matching (1:1) by including parameters as age, sex, sPESI, and ESC risk classes, univariate regression analyses demonstrated that the PE management based on a PERT decision was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (OR, 0.37 [95%CI 0.18-0.77]; p = 0.009). For PE-related mortality, a tendency for reduction was observed (OR, 0.54 [95%CI 0.24-1.18]; p = 0.121). CONCLUSION: PERT implementation was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality rate in patients with acute PE. Large prospective studies are needed further to explore the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes.

Pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) implementation and its clinical value across countries: a scoping review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last years, multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged to encounter the increasing variety and complexity in the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We aimed to systematically investigate the composition and added clinical value of PERTs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CENTRAL and Web of Science until January 2022 for articles designed to describe the structure and function of PERTs. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of controlled studies (PERT vs. pre-PERT era) to investigate the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes and advanced therapies use. RESULTS: We included 22 original studies and four surveys. Overall, 31.5% of patients with PE were evaluated by PERT referred mostly by emergency departments (59.4%). In 11 single-arm studies (1532 intermediate-risk and high-risk patients evaluated by PERT) mortality rate was 10%, bleeding rate 9% and length of stay 7.3 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7-8.9]. In nine controlled studies there was no difference in mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.19] by comparing pre-PERT with PERT era. When analysing patients with intermediate or high-risk class only, the effect estimate for mortality tended to be lower for patients treated in the PERT era compared to those treated in the pre-PERT era (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45-1.12). The use of advanced therapies was higher (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.29-5.50) and the in-hospital stay shorter (mean difference - 1.6 days) in PERT era compared to pre-PERT era. CONCLUSIONS: PERT implementation led to greater use of advanced therapies and shorter in-hospital stay. Our meta-analysis did not show a survival benefit in patients with PE since PERT implementation. Large prospective studies are needed to further explore the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/SBFK9.