Faculty Bibliography

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) have emerged to provide rapid multidisciplinary assessment and treatment of PE patients. However, descriptive institutional experience and preliminary outcomes data from such teams are sparse. PERT activations were identified through a retrospective review. Only confirmed submassive or massive PEs were included in the data analysis. In addition to baseline variables, the therapeutic intervention, length of stay (LOS), in-hospital mortality, and bleeding rate/severity were recorded. A total of 124 PERT activations occurred over 20 months: 43 in the first 10 months and 81 in the next 10. A total of 87 submassive (90.8%) and massive (9.2%) PE patients were included. The median age was 65 (51-75 IQR) years. Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) was administered to 25 patients, systemic thrombolysis (ST) to six, and anticoagulation alone (AC) to 54. The median ICU stay and overall LOS were 6 (3-10 IQR) and 7 (4-14 IQR) days, respectively, with no association with any variables except a brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) >100 pg/mL ( p=0.008 ICU LOS; p=0.047 overall LOS). Twelve patients (13.7%) died in the hospital, nine of whom had metastatic or brain cancer, with a median overall LOS of 13 (11-17 IQR) days. There were five major bleeds: one in the CDT group, one in the ST group, and three in the AC group. Overall, (1) PERT activations increased after the first 10 months; (2) BNP >100 pg/mL was associated with a longer LOS; (3) rates of mortality and bleeding did not correlate with treatment; and (4) the majority of in-hospital deaths occurred in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Anesthesiologists are familiar with pulmonary emboli prophylaxis paradigms and many have witnessed acute intraoperative embolization. Clinicians must balance conservative anticoagulation and aggressive intervention in perioperative submassive pulmonary emboli, yet the bulk of the literature excludes surgery as a relative contraindication. This review will summarize the current treatment options for acute pulmonary emboli, drawing attention to special considerations in perioperative submassive pulmonary emboli, and discuss right ventricular monitoring to improve assessment of intervention efficacy. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Recent reviews have identified the elevated risk and inadequacy of treatment of pulmonary embolism in intra and postoperative patients, in part because of the risks of systemic anticoagulation. Early studies of catheter-directed therapies have shown promising efficacy with a reduction in bleeding risk, which is especially important for perioperative patients. Success relies on defining endpoints, yet the practice of measuring mean pulmonary artery pressure alone to assess intervention efficacy is flawed. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Identifying submassive pulmonary emboli that requires treatment and optimizing therapy remains difficult. Researchers must consider avoiding systemic anticoagulation and focus on designing trials that evaluate intervention efficacy in surgical patients. The success of catheter-directed therapy in early trials warrants further investigation into using these therapies in the treatment of perioperative submassive pulmonary emboli.

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most common cause of death among hospitalized patients. Treatment escalation beyond anticoagulation therapy is necessary in patients with cardiogenic shock and may be of benefit in select normotensive patients with right heart strain. Percutaneous catheter-based techniques (catheter-directed mechanical thrombectomy, clot maceration, and/or pharmacologic thrombolysis) as an alternative or adjunct to systemic thrombolysis can rapidly debulk central clot in patients with shock. Catheter-directed thrombolysis, which uses a low-dose intraclot prolonged thrombolytic infusion, is a promising but insufficiently studied therapy for patients presenting with acute intermediate-risk PE.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal disease with a broad range of treatment options that spans multiple specialties. The rapid evolution and expansion of novel therapies to treat PE make it a disease process that is well suited to a multidisciplinary approach. In order to facilitate a rapid, robust response to the diagnosis of PE, some hospitals have established multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs). The PERT model is based on existing multidisciplinary teams such as heart teams and rapid response teams. A PERT is composed of clinicians from the range of specialties involved in the treatment of PE, including pulmonology critical care, interventional radiology, cardiology, and cardiothoracic surgery among others. A PERT is a 24/7 consult service that is able to provide expert advice on the initial management of PE patients and convene in real time to develop a consensus treatment plan specifically tailored to the needs of a particular patient and consistent with the capabilities of the institution. In this review, we discuss the rationale for establishing a PERT and its potential benefits. We discuss considerations in forming a PERT and present case studies of several PERTs currently in operation at different institutions. We also discuss potential difficulties in forming a PERT and review evidence that has been generated by some of the PERTs that have been in operation the longest.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Chronic venous occlusion is common particularly in cancer patient due to hypercoagulate state associated with venous compression. Treatment options include endovascular management with venoplasty and stenting. Recanalization can be challenging in patients with complete venous occlusion secondary to significant external compression by a mass. Case presentation/UNASSIGNED:We report a case of a 73-year-old man with a history of bladder and prostate cancer who presented with worsening right leg edema and pain due to deep venous thrombosis secondary to a retroperitoneal mass. Management was sharp recanalization, venoplasty and stenting. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Endovascular intervention of chronic venous occlusion is technically challenging and time consuming. Sharp venous recanalization is feasible and safe in patients who failed standard recanalization procedures. We present a case of cancer-related obstruction of the right iliac veins and acute thrombosis of the femoral vein with symptomatic lower limb swelling relieved by sharp recanalization through the tumor mass.

PURPOSE: To determine treatment preferences among endovascular and medical physicians who manage acute submassive pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July through August 2016, 83 sites across the United States were surveyed, and 60 completed the survey. Endovascular and medical physicians were asked to rate their predilection for catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) on a 5-point scale and for systemic thrombolysis (ST) as "yes" or "no" in seven case scenarios of submassive PE. A CDT score >/= 4 was considered to represent a predilection for CDT. Mean scores were used to compare CDT preferences between physicians. Percentages of physicians who preferred CDT or ST were calculated. P values < .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Across all scenarios (numbered S1-S7) combined, endovascular physicians had a significantly higher CDT score (mean, 3.52) than medical physicians (mean, 3.01; P < .0001). Scenario-by-scenario analysis revealed that the mean CDT score was significantly higher for endovascular physicians (S1, 4.25; S2, 3.72; S3, 2.82; S4, 2.68; S5, 3.45; S6, 3.67; S7, 4.02) compared with medical physicians (S1, 3.62 [P < .001]; S2, 3.18 [P < .001]; S3, 2.45 [P = .001]; S4, 2.37 [P = .011]; S5, 2.97 [P < .001]; S6, 3.20 [P < .001]; S7, 3.53 [P < .001]). Overall, a significantly higher percentage of endovascular physicians (56.7%) indicated a predilection for CDT compared with medical physicians (37.9%; P < .001). Also, a significantly higher percentage of physicians, regardless of specialty, indicated a predilection for CDT (47.2%) than did for ST (5.3%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular physicians exhibited a greater predilection for CDT to treat acute submassive PE compared with their medical colleagues. Endovascular and medical physicians seemed to more frequently choose CDT than ST.

This article will focus on 3 avenues for future research: (1) addressing the lack of short- and long-term clinical outcome research on catheter-directed therapy; (2) determining the safety and efficacy of novel thrombus removal devices; and (3) translating our knowledge of the pathobiology and pathophysiology of pulmonary embolism into novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Introduction: Minimally invasive tissue sampling for acquisition of diagnostic material and ancillary testing can be accomplished by fineneedle aspiration (FNA) and/or core needle biopsy (CNB). FNAs afford the capability of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) with confirmation of proper needle placement during a procedure. Traditionally, our interventional radiology (IR) group has performed FNAs first to ensure proper needle placement in targeted lesions followed by CNBs. With the number of FNAs increasing significantly each year, we sought to change IR practice- from performing dual FNA-CNB procedures to performance of CNBs without a preceding FNA- as a quality improvement initiative. Our aims were twofold: 1. Better allotment of cytotechnologists' resources dedicated instead to FNA-only ROSE endoscopic ultrasound(US)-guided gastrointestinal FNAs, FNA-CNB pulmonary cases, and US-guided thyroid FNAs; and 2. Increasing cost savings by reducing redundancy of duplicate procedures and workups. We sought to compare this practice change to the original practice to ensure maintenance of good sensitivity of IR procedures. Materials and Methods: Dual sampling utilizing FNA-CNB was only applied to pulmonary cases to ensure adequate material for molecular studies. Other lesions underwent CNB-alone. Quality assurance data for FNA-CNB versus CNB-alone from 09/2016-02/2017 was tabulated and sensitivities were calculated. Results: Beginning 09/2016, the number of CNBs alone increased secondary to the quality initiative (Figure 1). Six months after the start of the initiative the overall sensitivity of CNB alone was 96% versus 98% for CNB-FNA (Table 1.) Conclusions: Both FNA and CNB are excellent modalities to collect lesional tissue for analysis. Our preliminary quality improvement analysis has demonstrated comparable sensitivities in diagnosis utilizing CNB-alone versus FNA-CNB. These findings support continued utilization of CNBalone by IR. In this way cytopathology time and resources can be better utilized in other areas and for FNAs of other lesions. (Figure Presented)