Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), there are limited tools to assess therapeutic response following catheter-based intervention. This study evaluates pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), an invasive marker of right ventricular (RV) afterload, and its prognostic significance in acute PE. METHODS:This single-center retrospective study included patients from October 2020-May 2025 with intermediate-high risk PE undergoing large bore mechanical thrombectomy (LBMT) with pulmonary artery catheter-derived hemodynamic indices obtained pre- and post-procedure. The primary objective was to evaluate the effect of LBMT on PVR. Secondary objective was to evaluate the predictors of post procedure elevated PVR (defined as PVR >2 Wood units, WU) and its effect on clinical composite outcome (PE mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, hemodynamic instability and 90-day hospital readmission) and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS:A total of 131 patients were included. Following LBMT, median PVR decreased significantly from 2.9 to 1.8 WU (p < 0.001), with greater reduction in patients with higher baseline PVR (baseline PVR tertile 3 to 1: 50% vs. 40% vs. 20%; p < 0.001). Persistently elevated post procedure PVR (>2 WU) was seen in 43.6% of patients. However, the incidence of post-procedure severe PVR >5 WU was extremely low (11.5% pre-procedure, 0.8% post-procedure). Multivariable predictors of elevated post-procedural PVR were pre-procedural mean pulmonary artery pressure (OR: 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14, p = 0.026) and pre-procedural PVR (OR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.20-4.04, p = 0.011). In an age and sex adjusted model, elevated post-procedure PVR was associated with a longer in-hospital LOS of 4.2 days (95% CI: 0.60-7.88; p = 0.023) and a 4-fold higher risk of the composite outcome (20.7% vs 5.3%, adjusted hazard ratio: 4.02, 95% CI: 1.28-12.61, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with intermediate-high risk PE, LBMT significantly reduced PVR and may be a valuable hemodynamic marker of disease severity and treatment response. Elevated post-procedural PVR identified patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Intervention (SCAI) SHOCK stages classification schema risk-stratifies patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). The updated 2022 SCAI SHOCK stages removed the use of respiratory support, either noninvasive (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), as a criterion. We sought to investigate the impact of receiving respiratory support on in-hospital mortality for patients with CS stratified by SCAI SHOCK stages. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Utilizing a nationally representative database, adults aged ≥18 years admitted from 2015 to 2023 with a diagnosis of CS were used to assess for the association between respiratory support, either NIV or IMV, on the first day of admission, with in-hospital mortality stratified by SCAI SHOCK stages B through E. We utilized inverse probability treatment weighting, adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, hospital characteristics, and vasoactive/mechanical circulatory support. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:We identified 317,325 patients with CS, including 2.4%, 39.0%, 34.2%, and 24.5% with SCAI stages B through E, respectively. Respiratory support was utilized in 38.0% (n = 120,594) of patients, with 5.4% receiving NIV, 33.8% receiving IMV, and 1.1% receiving both on the first day of admission. After inverse probability treatment weighting, respiratory support use remained associated with an increased mortality overall (weighted mean mortality increase of 18.3%; 95% CI, 17.9%-18.7%), when stratified by each SCAI SHOCK stage and in several key sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Compared with patients not receiving respiratory support, the use of respiratory support was associated with an increased mortality for each SCAI stage of CS and could be a simple, easily identifiable CS risk modifier.

In patients experiencing acute heart failure, acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) can emerge due to a surge in pulmonary capillary hydrostatic pressure. This escalation triggers a fluid build-up beyond the lymphatic interstitial drainage system's ability to eliminate, leading to a swift increase in interstitial and alveolar fluid volumes. Such accumulation subsequently results in intrapulmonary shunting and an advancing state of respiratory failure. Contemporary evidence hints at the potential of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) to cut back on the reintubation rate, along with the reduction of ICU and hospital mortality rates, particularly among patients scheduled for extubation. The aim of this review is to critically analyze the existent body of evidence concerning the application of NIV in managing ACPE. It seeks to explore the practical aspects of utilizing NIV within an emergency department environment, addressing crucial considerations such as patient selection, commencement of treatment, monitoring protocols, problem-solving strategies, and weaning processes. In addition, our review will also explore the data available on high flow nasal cannula, a relatively recent therapeutic intervention, discussing its role and effectiveness in treating respiratory insufficiency associated with ACPE.

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/UNASSIGNED:Among patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism undergoing mechanical thrombectomy, the mean change in cardiac index (CI) is modest. We sought to identify variables associated with a hemodynamic super-response or a CI increase of ≥25% postthrombectomy. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This was a single-center retrospective study including patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism undergoing mechanical thrombectomy with pulmonary artery catheter-derived hemodynamic indices obtained preprocedure and postprocedure. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:was associated with a hemodynamic super-response (odds ratio, 3.76 [95% CI, 1.09-13.0]). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism with the more severe hemodynamic derangements had the greatest improvement in CI post thrombectomy. This group can be identified with commonly available noninvasive indices of right ventricular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND:Pulmonary embolism (PE) is can present with cardiac arrest. Catheter-based therapies (CBT) provide rapid reperfusion for patients with PE, though their effect on outcomes of patients with PE and cardiac arrest are not well known. AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of CBT on outcomes among patients with PE and cardiac arrest. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with PE and cardiac arrest from 2017 to 2020, using the National Readmission Database (NRD). We compared patients who underwent CBT versus no CBT and patients managed with CBT alone versus systemic thrombolysis alone. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death; exploratory outcomes were 90-day death and readmissions. Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used. RESULTS:Nine hundred and seventy-three patients were included (111 with CBT). CBT was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death (36.9% vs. 49.3%, p = 0.015; aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.85) with no difference in 90-day readmission (11.3% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.19; aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.27-1.47). Among the 390 patients with either CBT or systemic thrombolysis alone in-hospital death (34.4% vs. 48.5%, p = 0.023; aOR 0.51, 95% CI 0.21-1.25) and 90-day readmissions (13.3% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.79; aHR 1.04, 95% CI 0.39-2.76) were similar. Ninety-day survival was higher with CBT when compared with no CBT or systemic thrombolytic alone (log-rank p = 0.050 and 0.020, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with PE and cardiac arrest, CBT was associated with decreased risk of in-hospital death and 90-day survival compared with no CBT. Further prospective study on utility of CBT in PE and cardiac arrest is needed.

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.

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.