Adoption of a dedicated multidisciplinary team is associated with improved survival in acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Acute pulmonary embolism remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Benefit of recently developed multidisciplinary PE response teams (PERT) with higher utilization of advanced therapies has not been established. METHODS: To evaluate patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary PERT we performed a retrospective analysis of 554 patients with acute PE at the university of Virginia between July 2014 and June 2015 (pre-PERT era) and between April 2017 through October 2018 (PERT era). Six-month survival, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), type of PE therapy, and in-hospital bleeding were assessed upon collected data. RESULTS: 317 consecutive patients were treated for acute PE during an 18-month period following institution of a multidisciplinary PE program; for 120 patients PERT was activated (PA), the remaining 197 patients with acute PE were considered as a separate, contemporary group (NPA). The historical, comparator cohort (PP) was composed of 237 patients. These 3 groups were similar in terms of baseline demographics, comorbidities and risk, as assessed by the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI). Patients in the historical cohort demonstrated worsened survival when compared with patients treated during the PERT era. During the PERT era no statistically significant difference in survival was observed in the PA group when compared to the NPA group despite significantly higher severity of illness among PA patients. Hospital LOS was not different in the PA group when compared to either the NPA or PP group. Hospital costs did not differ among the 3 cohorts. 30-day re-admission rates were significantly lower during the PERT era. Rates of advanced therapies were significantly higher during the PERT era (9.1% vs. 2%) and were concentrated in the PA group (21.7% vs. 1.5%) without any significant rise in in-hospital bleeding complications. CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, all-cause mortality in patients with acute PE has significantly and durably decreased with the adoption of a PERT program without incurring additional hospital costs or protracting hospital LOS. Our data suggest that the adoption of a multidisciplinary approach at some institutions may provide benefit to select patients with acute PE.

Overview of Link Between Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Cardiovascular Disease.

Inflammation has been shown to play an increasingly important role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and in precipitating thrombotic events. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a systemic inflammatory disorder with a wide range of extraintestinal manifestations including a clinically significant increase in the risk of venous thromboembolism compared to matched controls in several studies. The data for the association between IBD and ischemic heart disease are less clear; multiple population-based studies have shown both positive and negative associations between the 2 conditions. While the systemic inflammation should theoretically increase the risk for cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel also potentially provides a cardioprotective effect in several ways. Patients with IBD typically enter the healthcare system at an earlier age and experience a lower incidence of obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperlipidemia. Given the complex interplay among the proatherogenic, prothrombogenic, and cardioprotective effects, IBD should be taken into consideration as a nontraditional risk factor for cardiovascular disease in specific subsets of patients.