Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Catheter-based therapies (CBT) are emerging technologies that provide reperfusion for patients with PE. However, the optimal timing of these interventions from initial presentation is unknown. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to determine whether the timing of CBT affects outcomes among patients with acute PE managed with CBT. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with PE who underwent CBT and were included in the Nationwide Readmissions Database between January 2017 and December 2020. Patients who underwent early CBT (≤1 day from admission) were compared with those who underwent delayed CBT (>1 day). The primary outcome was death at 90 days, and secondary outcomes included 90-day readmissions. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression, and propensity score weighting (PSW) was utilised to compare outcomes between early and delayed CBT. Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to estimate the risk of primary and readmission outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 12,137 patients were included: 1,992 (16.4%) had high-risk PE, and 1,856 (15.3%) were treated with delayed CBT. After PSW, early CBT was associated with a lower risk of 90-day death in both intermediate-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.66) and high-risk (HR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99) PE. Early CBT was associated with lower rates of all-cause readmission in patients with intermediate-risk PE (HR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.95) and in those with high-risk PE (HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.69-1.05). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with intermediate- or high-risk PE, early CBT was associated with a lower risk of 90-day death and readmission. A further prospective study on the optimal timing for reperfusion using CBT is needed.

Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being increasingly used for the management of patients admitted with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) and are endorsed by societal guidelines. Whether PERT improves outcomes remains unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of patients with acute PE treated by a PERT versus no PERT.A systematic review and study level meta-analysis was conducted by searching PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception until November 10, 2024 and included studies evaluating efficacy of PERT vs no PERT in patients admitted for acute PE. Outcomes included all-cause mortality (in-hospital and 30-day mortality), major and clinically relevant bleeding, advanced therapies utilization, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day readmission. Twenty-four retrospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 15,809 patients (mean age 61.6 years with 49% male) with acute PE of which 6228 were treated with a PERT and 9,581 without a PERT. Lower all-cause mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) [odds ratio (OR)= 0.72; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.93; 24 studies], major or clinically relevant bleeding (OR= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.86; 15 studies), higher utilization of advanced therapies (OR= 3.16; 95% CI: 1.81 to 5.49; 19 studies), and lower hospital LOS (MD= -1.49; 95% CI: -2.59 to -0.39; 14 studies) were seen in the patients treated by a PERT compared to those not treated by a PERT. In this large meta-analysis of observational studies comparing outcomes in patients treated by PERT versus not treated by PERT, there were significantly lower short-term mortality, lower major or clinically relevant bleeding, higher utilization of advanced therapies and lower hospital length of stay with the existence of PERT. PERT should be the standard of care for the management of patients with acute PE.

BACKGROUND:Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a common complication of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Revascularization has been shown to reduce mortality in ACS-CS. Patients with cancer are at high risk of ACS and CS. However, patients with cancer are often undertreated with invasive procedures and outcomes of patients with cancer and ACS-CS have not been thoroughly characterized. METHODS:Patients with ACS-CS from 2014 to 2020 with and without cancer were identified using the National Readmission Database (NRD). Primary outcome was death at 90-days. Secondary outcomes were 90-day cardiovascular (CV) and bleeding readmissions, and index hospitalization major bleeding and thrombotic complications. Patients with cancer were compared to patients without cancer using multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression. Temporal trends in revascularization among patients with and without cancer were examined. Effect of revascularization among patients with cancer and ACS-CS was assessed using propensity score weighting (PSW). RESULTS:A total of 140,205 patients were identified, of whom 6118 (4.4 %) with cancer were identified. Patients with cancer were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (45.5 % vs 53.5 %) or be managed with mechanical circulatory support (36.6 % vs 46.0 %). After multivariable logistic regression, there was no difference in primary outcome (adjusted OR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.92-1.06) but patients with cancer had higher risk of 90-day CV (HR 1.11, 95 % CI 1.01-1.22) and bleeding readmissions (HR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.10-1.76). Among patients with cancer and ACS-CS, revascularization was associated with lower primary outcome (OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.50-0.58) and 90-day CV readmission (HR 0.68, 95 % CI 0.59-0.77) after PSW. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with ACS-CS, patients with cancer have similar 90-day death but higher risk of 90-day CV and bleeding readmissions. Additionally, revascularization was associated with improved outcomes among patients with cancer and ACS-CS. Further studies are needed to optimize patient selection for invasive management among patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND:Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) have outcomes worse than uncomplicated ST elevation myocardial infarction. Yet, no large-scale study has compared the outcomes of large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) with anticoagulation alone (AC). The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes among patients receiving LBMT vs AC alone. METHODS:This was a two-center retrospective study that included patients with intermediate-risk PE from October 2016 - October 2023 from the institution's Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) database. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest or hemodynamic decompensation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates; Kaplan Meir curves and IPTW multivariable Cox regression were used to assess the relationship between treatment groups and outcomes. RESULTS:Of the 273 patients included in the analysis, 192 (70 %) patients received AC alone and 81 (30 %) patients received LBMT and AC. A total of 30 (10.9 %) patients experienced the primary composite outcome over a median follow-up of 30 days. The primary composite outcome was significantly lower in the group that received LBMT compared to those on AC alone (1.2 % vs 15.1 %, log-rank p < 0.001; adjusted HR: 0.02; 95 % CI: 0.002-0.17, p < 0.001) driven by a lower rate of 30-day all-cause mortality (0 % vs 7.3 %, log-rank p = 0.01), resuscitated cardiac arrest (0 % vs 6.8 %, log-rank p = 0.016) and new or worsening hemodynamic instability (4 % vs 11.1 %, log-rank p = 0.007). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this largest cohort to date comparing LBMT versus AC alone in acute intermediate-risk PE, LBMT had a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome including a lower rate of all-cause mortality when compared to AC alone. Ongoing randomized trials will test these associations.

BACKGROUND:The relationship between syncope and invasive hemodynamics in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the ability of syncope, as a single clinical variable, to predict a low cardiac index in patients with acute PE. METHODS:) in patients with acute intermediate- high risk PE. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, hemodynamic instability, 90-day readmission rates, other invasive hemodynamic parameters, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between cardiac index and syncope. RESULTS:A total of 132 patients (86% intermediate- and 14% high-risk) were included in the study, with 27 (20%) presenting with syncope. Among the 114 intermediate-risk patients, 24 (21%) presented with syncope. In all-comers, there was no significant difference between groups at baseline. Within the intermediate-only subgroup, there were no significant differences between groups at baseline, except that the syncope group was older (62.6 ± 14.9 vs. 56.1 ± 13.9, p=0.048, Table 2) and had significantly higher troponin elevation at presentation (684.3 ± 1361.8ng/L vs. 195.6 ± 278.1ng/L, p=0.003, Table 2). In all-comers, there was no difference in rates of low cardiac index (63% vs. 59%, p=0.71) or mPAP (33.9 ± 8.6 vs. 32.7 ± 9.6 mm Hg, p=0.57) between patients who presented with and without syncope. Similarly, among intermediate-risk patients, there was also no difference in the rates of low cardiac index (67% vs. 57%, p=0.38) or mPAP (34.0 ± 9.2 vs. 33.1 ± 9.8 mmHg, p=0.69) between patients with and without syncope. There was no difference in clinical outcomes between those who presented with and without syncope. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, in patients with acute PE, syncope was not associated with a low cardiac index or higher mPAP.

BACKGROUND:The recently published PEERLESS trial compared catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) in acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, it included a low proportion of patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy (4.4%), leaving uncertainty about how CDT would perform relative to CBT in a real-world cohort with higher bleeding risk. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:This study aims to address this gap by comparing real-world outcomes of CDT and CBT in patients with acute PE. METHODS:This retrospective analysis included patients who underwent CDT and CBT at two tertiary care centers from January 2020 to January 2024. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for baseline variables. RESULTS:A total of 162 (mean age 58 years, 45.7% women, 17.3% high-risk, 28% contraindication to lytics, 28% CDT, 72% CBT) patients were included, with 12.4% patients experiencing the primary outcome. There was no difference in the rates of the primary outcome between CBT versus CDT (11.2% vs. 15.2%, IPTW HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.27-2.38, p = 0.69). CBT was associated with a lower risk of hemodynamic decompensation (5% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.036), major bleeding (7.8% vs. 17.4%, IPTW HR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.07-0.95, p = 0.042) and ICH (0 vs. 4.3%, p = 0.024) compared to CDT. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Among a real-world cohort of patients with acute PE with higher bleeding risk than PEERLESS undergoing catheter-based therapies, CBT was associated with a lower rate of hemodynamic deterioration, major bleeding, and ICH with similar rate of primary composite outcome when compared with CDT. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.

The provision of positive pressure ventilation has the potential to provoke hemodynamic deterioration. The subject of heart-lung interactions is both complex and critical yet often obscure and fraught with misconception among trainees and seasoned clinicians alike. In this article, we focus on the impact of positive pressure ventilation on the right heart, providing a teaching approach composed of didactic sessions and simulated cases. We split our didactics and cases into two 30-minute sessions: "How the right heart fills" and "How the right heart empties." Within each session, our framework highlights key concepts with respect to circulatory physiology, respiratory system mechanics, and an amalgam of the two subjects as it pertains to managing clinical scenarios encountered during a trainee's intensive care unit rotation.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to compare the hemodynamic impact and clinical outcomes of saddle vs non-saddle pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS:This was a retrospective analysis of clinical characteristics and outcomes among patients with saddle and non-saddle PE within a cohort referred for catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) with invasive hemodynamic assessments. Patients who underwent CBT between August 2020 and January 2024 were included. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a low cardiac index (CI < 2.2 L/min/m²). Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. RESULTS:A total of 107 patients (84 intermediate risk, 23 high-risk; mean age 58 years, 47.6% female) were included in the study, with 44 patients having saddle PE and 63 having non-saddle PE. There were no significant differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics between saddle and non-saddle PE, including rates of high-risk PE (25% vs 16%, P = .24), rates of RV dysfunction, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (55 vs 53 mm Hg, P = .74), mean pulmonary artery pressure (34 mm Hg vs 33 mm Hg), low cardiac index (56% vs 51%, P = .64), rates of normotensive shock (27% vs 20%, P = .44), or Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock scores (4.5 vs 4.7, P = .25). Additionally, 30-day mortality (6% vs 5%, P = .69), ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing CBT, there were no significant differences in invasive hemodynamic parameters or clinical outcomes between those with saddle and non-saddle PE.

BACKGROUND:Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) and normotensive shock may have worse outcomes. However, diagnosis of normotensive shock requires invasive hemodynamics. Our objective was to assess the predictive value of McConnell's sign in identifying normotensive shock in patients with intermediate-risk PE. METHODS:and clinical evidence of hypoperfusion (i.e. elevated lactate, oliguria). The primary outcome was the association between McConnell's sign and normotensive shock. RESULTS:, p = 0.003), and higher rates of normotensive shock (76 % vs 27 %, p = 0.005). McConnell's sign had a sensitivity of 88 % and specificity of 53 % for identifying intermediate-risk PE patients with normotensive shock. Patients with McConnell's sign had an increased odds (odds ratio 8.38, confidence interval: 1.73-40.53, p = 0.008; area under the curve 0.70, 95 % confidence interval: 0.56-0.85) of normotensive shock. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This is the first study to suggest that McConnell's sign may identify those in the intermediate-risk group who are at risk for normotensive shock. Larger cohorts are needed to validate our findings.