Faculty Bibliography

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: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: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.

BACKGROUND:In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), guidelines recommend further risk stratification (Class 1 indication). However, head-to-head comparison of different risk stratification tools are lacking. Our objective was to compare the performance of 4 scores in predicting adverse clinical events in intermediate-risk PE. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of 192 intermediate-risk PE patients spanning October 2016 to July 2019. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to compare the predictive performance of the composite PE shock (CPES) score, Bova, simplified PE shock index (sPESI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory types for the primary outcome, which was a composite of PE-related in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation and its individual components. RESULTS:A total of 28 patients (14.6%) experienced the primary composite outcome. CPES demonstrated the highest discriminatory power for predicting the primary composite outcome (AUC: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.83) as well as its individual components compared to the other risk scores (p = 0.008). The AUCs for the other scores were as follows: Bova, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.76); sPESI, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.77); NEWS, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.82) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory, AUC of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51-0.68). The ESC intermediate-risk subcategory exhibited the lowest performance for the primary composite outcome and across all individual components. CONCLUSION:CPES score outperformed other commonly used risk stratification tools for PE-related morbidity and mortality in intermediate-risk PE patients. The findings support the integration of CPES into clinical practice to enhance patient selection for escalated care and timely interventions.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to examine the impact of early versus delayed catheter-based therapies (CBTs) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 2 academic centers involving patients with intermediate-risk PE from January 2020 to January 2024. Patients were divided into early (<12 hours) and delayed CBT (≥12 hours) groups. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, hemodynamic instability, and 90-day readmission. Secondary outcomes included a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and hemodynamic instability. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=0.046). When patients were stratified by timing of CBT (early/late) and the composite PE shock score (high ≥3; low <3), all 16 patients who experienced the primary composite outcome had a high composite PE shock score, with 14/16 (87.5%) having a high composite PE shock score and delayed intervention. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Early CBT was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute intermediate-risk PE. The composite PE shock score may help identify patients who will benefit from early CBT. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

BACKGROUND:In patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), guidelines recommend further risk stratification (Class 1 indication). However, head-to-head comparison of different risk stratification tools are lacking. Our objective was to compare the performance of 4 scores in predicting adverse clinical events in intermediate-risk PE. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of 192 intermediate-risk PE patients spanning October 2016 to July 2019. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to compare the predictive performance of the composite PE shock (CPES) score, Bova, simplified PE shock index (sPESI), National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory types for the primary outcome, which was a composite of PE-related in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation and its individual components. RESULTS:A total of 28 patients (14.6%) experienced the primary composite outcome. CPES demonstrated the highest discriminatory power for predicting the primary composite outcome (AUC: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.66-0.83) as well as its individual components compared to the other risk scores (p = 0.008). The AUCs for the other scores were as follows: Bova, 0.66 (95% CI: 0.56-0.76); sPESI, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.57-0.77); NEWS, 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.82) and ESC intermediate-risk subcategory, AUC of 0.59 (95% CI: 0.51-0.68). The ESC intermediate-risk subcategory exhibited the lowest performance for the primary composite outcome and across all individual components. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:CPES score outperformed other commonly used risk stratification tools for PE-related morbidity and mortality in intermediate-risk PE patients. The findings support the integration of CPES into clinical practice to enhance patient selection for escalated care and timely interventions.

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/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to examine the impact of early versus delayed catheter-based therapies (CBTs) on clinical outcomes in patients with acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 2 academic centers involving patients with intermediate-risk PE from January 2020 to January 2024. Patients were divided into early (<12 hours) and delayed CBT (≥12 hours) groups. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, hemodynamic instability, and 90-day readmission. Secondary outcomes included a composite of 30-day mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and hemodynamic instability. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:=0.046). When patients were stratified by timing of CBT (early/late) and the composite PE shock score (high ≥3; low <3), all 16 patients who experienced the primary composite outcome had a high composite PE shock score, with 14/16 (87.5%) having a high composite PE shock score and delayed intervention. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Early CBT was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute intermediate-risk PE. The composite PE shock score may help identify patients who will benefit from early CBT. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

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.

BACKGROUND:Clot-in-transit is associated with high mortality, but optimal management strategies remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different treatment strategies in patients with clot-in-transit. METHODS:This is a retrospective study of patients with documented clot-in-transit in the right heart on echocardiography across 2 institutions between January 2020 and October 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. RESULTS:=0.067). CONCLUSIONS:In this study of CBT in patients with clot-in-transit, CBT or systemic thrombolysis was associated with a significantly lower rate of adverse clinical outcomes, including a lower rate of death compared with anticoagulation alone driven by the CBT group. CBT has the potential to improve outcomes. Further large-scale studies are needed to test these associations.

BACKGROUND:In hemodynamically stable patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE), the Composite Pulmonary Embolism Shock (CPES) score predicts normotensive shock. However, it is unknown if CPES predicts adverse clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine whether the CPES score predicts in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic deterioration. METHODS:Patients with acute intermediate-risk PE admitted from October 2016 to July 2019 were included. CPES was calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome. The association of CPES with primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated. RESULTS:=0.005). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with acute intermediate-risk PE, the CPES score effectively risk stratifies and prognosticates patients for the prediction of clinical events and provides incremental value over baseline demographics and European Society of Cardiology intermediate-risk subcategories.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Mounting evidence indicates that an individual's humoral adaptive immune response plays a critical role in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the efficiency of the response correlates with disease severity. The relationship between the adaptive immune dynamics in the lower airways with those in the systemic circulation, and how these relate to an individual's clinical response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, are less understood and are the focus of this study. MATERIAL AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We investigated the adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in paired samples from the lower airways and blood from 27 critically ill patients during the first wave of the pandemic (median time from symptom onset to intubation 11 days). Measurements included clinical outcomes (mortality), bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and blood specimen antibody levels, and BALF viral load. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:While there was heterogeneity in the levels of the SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies, we unexpectedly found that some BALF specimens displayed higher levels than the paired concurrent plasma samples, despite the known dilutional effects common in BALF samples. We found that survivors had higher levels of anti-spike, anti-spike-N-terminal domain and anti-spike-receptor-binding domain IgG antibodies in their BALF (p<0.05), while there was no such association with antibody levels in the systemic circulation. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Our data highlight the critical role of local adaptive immunity in the airways as a key defence mechanism against primary SARS-CoV-2 infection.