Inhaled Treprostinil in Pulmonary Hypertension Due to Interstitial Lung Disease.

BACKGROUND: No therapies are currently approved for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension in patients with interstitial lung disease. The safety and efficacy of inhaled treprostinil for patients with this condition are unclear. METHODS: We enrolled patients with interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension (documented by right heart catheterization) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week trial. Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive inhaled treprostinil, administered by means of an ultrasonic, pulsed-delivery nebulizer in up to 12 breaths (total, 72 µg) four times daily, or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was the difference between the two groups in the change in peak 6-minute walk distance from baseline to week 16. Secondary end points included the change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level at week 16 and the time to clinical worsening. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients underwent randomization, with 163 assigned to inhaled treprostinil and 163 to placebo. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. At week 16, the least-squares mean difference between the treprostinil group and the placebo group in the change from baseline in the 6-minute walk distance was 31.12 m (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.85 to 45.39; P<0.001). There was a reduction of 15% in NT-proBNP levels from baseline with inhaled treprostinil as compared with an increase of 46% with placebo (treatment ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.72; P<0.001). Clinical worsening occurred in 37 patients (22.7%) in the treprostinil group as compared with 54 patients (33.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.92; P = 0.04 by the log-rank test). The most frequently reported adverse events were cough, headache, dyspnea, dizziness, nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease, inhaled treprostinil improved exercise capacity from baseline, assessed with the use of a 6-minute walk test, as compared with placebo. (Funded by United Therapeutics; INCREASE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02630316.).

Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. RESULTS: A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P = 0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, -5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.8 to -0.3; P = 0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to -1.9; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579.).

Inhaled treprostinil in pulmonary hypertension associated with COPD: PERFECT study results.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) accompanying COPD (PH-COPD) is associated with worse outcomes than COPD alone. There are currently no approved therapies to treat PH-COPD. The PERFECT study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03496623) evaluated the safety and efficacy of inhaled treprostinil (iTRE) in this patient population. METHODS: Patients with PH-COPD (mean pulmonary arterial pressure ≥30 mmHg and pulmonary vascular resistance ≥4 WU) were enrolled in a multicentre, randomised (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12-week, crossover study. A contingent parallel design was also prespecified and implemented, based on a blinded interim analysis of missing data. Patients received treatment with iTRE up to 12 breaths (72 µg) 4 times daily or placebo. The primary efficacy end-point was change in peak 6-min walk distance (6MWD) at week 12. RESULTS: In total, 76 patients were randomised, 64 in the original crossover design and 12 in the contingent parallel design; 66 patients received iTRE and 58 received placebo. The study was terminated early at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee based on the totality of evidence that iTRE increased the risk of serious adverse events and suggestive evidence of an increased risk of mortality. The change in 6MWD was numerically worse with iTRE exposure than with placebo exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The risk-benefit observations associated with iTRE in patients with PH-COPD did not support continuation of the PERFECT study. The results of this study do not support iTRE as a viable treatment option in patients with PH-COPD.

Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Final Report.

BACKGROUND: Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportional-odds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.).

Long-term inhaled treprostinil for pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease: INCREASE open-label extension study.

INTRODUCTION: The 16-week randomised, placebo-controlled INCREASE trial (RCT) met its primary end-point by improving 6-min walk distance (6MWD) in patients receiving inhaled treprostinil for pulmonary hypertension due to interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). The open-label extension (OLE) evaluated long-term effects of inhaled treprostinil in PH-ILD. METHODS: Of 258 eligible patients, 242 enrolled in the INCREASE OLE and received inhaled treprostinil. Assessments included 6MWD, pulmonary function testing, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), quality of life and adverse events. Hospitalisations, exacerbations of underlying lung disease and death were recorded. RESULTS: At INCREASE OLE baseline, patients had a median age of 70 years and a mean 6MWD of 274.2 m; 52.1% were male. For the overall population, the mean 6MWD at week 52 was 279.1 m and the mean change from INCREASE RCT baseline was 3.5 m (22.1 m for the prior inhaled treprostinil arm and -19.5 m for the prior placebo arm); the median NT-proBNP decreased from 389 pg·mL-1 at RCT baseline to 359 pg·mL-1 at week 64; and the absolute (% predicted) mean forced vital capacity change from RCT baseline to week 64 was 51 mL (2.8%). Patients who received inhaled treprostinil versus placebo in the RCT had a 31% lower relative risk of exacerbation of underlying lung disease in the OLE (hazard ratio 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.97); p=0.03). Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 54 (22.3%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the long-term safety and efficacy of inhaled treprostinil in patients with PH-ILD, and are consistent with the results observed in the INCREASE RCT.

Guideline Compliance and Indications for Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement at a Quaternary Care Medical Center.

PURPOSE: This study investigated physician compliance with indications for inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement according to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the 2011 Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective medical record review of 231 retrievable IVC filters placed between August 15, 2016, and December 28, 2017, at a large urban academic medical center. Guideline compliance to the 2012 ACCP and the 2011 SIR guidelines, and indications for IVC filter placements were assessed through an adjudication protocol. Filter retrieval and complication rates were also examined. RESULTS: Compliance to guidelines was low (60.2% for ACCP; 74.0% for SIR), especially for non-intensive care unit (ICU) patients (ICU 74.6% vs non-ICU 54.8%, p=0.007 for ACCP; ICU 82.5% vs non-ICU 70.8%, p=0.092 for SIR). After adjudication, 8.2% (19/231) of filters were considered non-indicated but reasonable, 17.7% (41/231) non-indicated and unreasonable, and 13.9% (32/231) SIR-indicated but not ACCP-indicated. The most common indication was venous thromboembolism with contraindication to anticoagulation. The most common reasons for non-compliance were distal deep venous thrombosis with contraindication to anticoagulation (19/60, 31.6%) and clot burden (19/60, 31.6%). One-year filter retrieval and 90-day complication rates were 32.0% (74/231) and 6.1% (14/231), respectively. CONCLUSION: Compliance to established guidelines was low. Reasons for non-compliance included limitations or discrepancies in guidelines, as well as non-evidence-based filter placements. CLINICAL IMPACT: Despite increasing utilization of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters, guideline compliance for IVC filter placement among providers is unclear. The results of this study indicate that physician compliance to established guidelines is poor, especially in non-intensive-care-unit patients. Noncompliance stems from non-evidence-based filter placement as well as differences and limitations in guidelines. Avoiding non-indicated IVC filter placement and consolidation of guidelines may significantly improve guideline compliance. The critical insights gained from this study can help promote judicious use of IVC filters and highlight the role of venous thromboembolism experts in navigating complex cases and nuances of guidelines.

Efficacy of Inhaled Treprostinil on Multiple Disease Progression Events in Patients with Pulmonary Hypertension due to Parenchymal Lung Disease in the INCREASE Trial.

Rationale: The INCREASE study of inhaled treprostinil met its primary endpoint of change in 6-minute-walk distance at Week 16. In addition, there were significantly fewer clinical worsening events in patients receiving inhaled treprostinil. However, the incidence of multiple events in the same patient is unknown. Objectives: This post hoc analysis evaluated the effect of continued treatment with inhaled treprostinil on the frequency and impact of multiple disease progression events. Methods: Patients enrolled in INCREASE were analyzed for disease progression events, defined as at least 15% decline in 6-minute-walk distance, exacerbation of underlying lung disease, cardiopulmonary hospitalization, lung transplantation, at least 10% decline in forced vital capacity, or death during the duration of the 16-week study. Measurements and Main Results: In total, 147 disease progression events occurred in the inhaled treprostinil group (89/163 patients, 55%) compared with 215 events (109/163 patients, 67%) in the placebo group (P = 0.018). There was a lower incidence of each disease progression component in the inhaled treprostinil group: 6-minute-walk distance decline (45 vs. 64 events), lung disease exacerbation (48 vs. 72 events), FVC decline (19 vs. 33), cardiopulmonary hospitalization (23 vs. 33 events), and death (10 vs. 12). Fewer patients receiving inhaled treprostinil had multiple progression events compared with those receiving the placebo (35 vs. 58, 22% vs. 36%; P = 0.005). Conclusions: Patients who received inhaled treprostinil were significantly less likely to experience further disease progression events after an initial event compared with patients receiving placebo. These results support the continuation of inhaled treprostinil despite the occurrence of disease progression in clinical practice.

COVID-19 and Its Implications for Thrombosis and Anticoagulation.

Venous thromboembolism, occlusion of dialysis catheters, circuit thrombosis in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) devices, acute limb ischemia, and isolated strokes, all in the face of prophylactic and even therapeutic anticoagulation, are features of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) coagulopathy. It seems well established at this time that a COVID-19 patient deemed sick enough to be hospitalized, should receive at least prophylactic dose anticoagulation. However, should some hospitalized patients have dosage escalation to intermediate dose? Should some be considered for full-dose anticoagulation without a measurable thromboembolic event and how should that anticoagulation be monitored? Should patients receive postdischarge anticoagulation and with what medication and for how long? What thrombotic issues are related to the various medications being used to treat this coagulopathy? Is antiphospholipid antibody part of this syndrome? What is the significance of isolated ischemic stroke and limb ischemia in this disorder and how does this interface with the rest of the clinical and laboratory features of this disorder? The aims of this article are to explore these questions and interpret the available data based on the current evidence.

Direct oral anticoagulants in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) represents the later stage consequence of at least one or more unresolved episodes of acute pulmonary embolism; thus, indefinite anticoagulation is strongly recommended by current practice guidelines. Historically, vitamin K antagonists have been widely used in these patients. However, recent data indicate a shift toward direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), despite lack of data on the safety and efficacy in this patient population. Herein, we briefly discuss the current rationale for oral anticoagulation use in CTEPH, addressing important issues and controversies involved with the use of DOACs, opening a strategy for further clinical research in the field of oral anticoagulation.

Combination Therapy with Oral Treprostinil for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. A Double-Blind Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Oral treprostinil improves exercise capacity in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), but the effect on clinical outcomes was unknown.Objectives: To evaluate the effect of oral treprostinil compared with placebo on time to first adjudicated clinical worsening event in participants with PAH who recently began approved oral monotherapy.Methods: In this event-driven, double-blind study, we randomly allocated 690 participants (1:1 ratio) with PAH to receive placebo or oral treprostinil extended-release tablets three times daily. Eligible participants were using approved oral monotherapy for over 30 days before randomization and had a 6-minute-walk distance 150 m or greater. The primary endpoint was the time to first adjudicated clinical worsening event: death; hospitalization due to worsening PAH; initiation of inhaled or parenteral prostacyclin therapy; disease progression; or unsatisfactory long-term clinical response.Measurements and Main Results: Clinical worsening occurred in 26% of the oral treprostinil group compared with 36% of placebo participants (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.97; P = 0.028). Key measures of disease status, including functional class, Borg dyspnea score, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, all favored oral treprostinil treatment at Week 24 and beyond. A noninvasive risk stratification analysis demonstrated that oral treprostinil-assigned participants had a substantially higher mortality risk at baseline but achieved a lower risk profile from Study Weeks 12-60. The most common adverse events in the oral treprostinil group were headache, diarrhea, flushing, nausea, and vomiting.Conclusions: In participants with PAH, addition of oral treprostinil to approved oral monotherapy reduced the risk of clinical worsening.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01560624).

Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: the Bedside.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), included in group 4 PH, is an uncommon complication of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), in which emboli in the pulmonary vasculature do not resolve but rather form into an organized scar-like obstruction which can result in right ventricular (RV) failure. Here we provide an overview of current diagnosis and management of CTEPH. RECENT FINDINGS: CTEPH management is complex with treatments that range from surgery, percutaneous interventions, to medical therapies. Current CTEPH medical therapies have largely been repurposed from pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The diagnosis of CTEPH can be challenging, requiring a multimodality approach to differentiate from disease mimics. While these treatments improve symptoms, they may not reverse the underlying pathology of CTEPH.

Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: the Bench.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is an uncommon complication of acute pulmonary embolism (PE), in which the red, platelet-rich thrombus does not resolve but forms into an organized yellow, fibrotic scar-like obstruction in the pulmonary vasculature. Here we review the pathobiology of CTEPH. RECENT FINDINGS: Our current knowledge has predominantly been informed by studies of human samples and animal models that are inherently limited in their ability to recapitulate all aspects of the disease. These studies have identified alterations in platelet biology and inflammation in the formation of a scar-like thrombus that comprised endothelial cells, myofibroblasts, and immune cells, along with a small vessel pulmonary arterial hypertension-like vasculopathy. The development of CTEPH-specific therapies is currently hindered by a limited knowledge of its pathobiology. The development of new CTEPH medical therapies will require new insights into its pathobiology that bridge the gap from bench to bedside.

Association of N-Terminal Pro Brain Natriuretic Peptide and Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide) levels are included in the multiparametric risk assessment approach for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) outlined in PAH guidelines. However, data supporting the use of NT-proBNP risk thresholds in assessing prognosis in PAH are limited. The GRIPHON trial (Prostacyclin [PGI2] Receptor Agonist In Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension) provides an opportunity to assess the prognostic value of NT-proBNP thresholds in a controlled clinical trial and to evaluate the response to selexipag according to these thresholds. METHODS: The event-driven GRIPHON trial randomly assigned patients to selexipag or placebo. NT-proBNP was measured at regular intervals in GRIPHON. Here, patients were categorized post hoc into low, medium, and high NT-proBNP subgroups according to 2 independent sets of thresholds: (1) baseline tertiles: <271 ng/L; 271 to 1165 ng/L; >1165 ng/L; and (2) 2015 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines cutoffs: <300 ng/L; 300 to 1400 ng/L; >1400 ng/L. Hazard ratios (selexipag versus placebo) with 95% CIs were calculated for the primary end point (composite morbidity/mortality events) by NT-proBNP category at baseline using Cox proportional-hazards models, and at any time during the exposure period using a time-dependent Cox model. RESULTS: With both thresholds, baseline and follow-up NT-proBNP categories were highly prognostic for future morbidity/mortality events during the study ( P<0.0001). In the time-dependent analysis, the risk of experiencing a morbidity/mortality event was 92% and 83% lower in selexipag-treated patients with a low and medium NT-proBNP level, and 90% and 56% lower in placebo-treated patients with a low and medium NT-proBNP level, in comparison with patients with a high NT-proBNP level. Selexipag reduced the risk of morbidity/mortality events across all 3 NT-proBNP categories in both the baseline and time-dependent analyses, with a more pronounced treatment benefit of selexipag seen in the medium and low NT-proBNP subgroups (interaction P values 0.20 and 0.007 in the baseline and time-dependent analyses). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses further establish the prognostic relevance of NT-proBNP levels in PAH and provide first evidence for the association of NT-proBNP level and treatment response. Using 2 similar sets of thresholds, these analyses support the relevance of the low, medium, and high NT-proBNP categories as part of the multiparametric risk assessment approach outlined in the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of PAH patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01106014.

Treatment-related biomarkers in pulmonary hypertension patients on oral therapies.

BACKGROUND: Multiple classes of oral therapy are available for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), but there is little to guide clinicians in choosing a specific regimen or therapeutic class. We aimed to investigate whether treatment-relevant blood biomarkers can predict therapy response in prevalent PAH patients. METHODS: This prospective cohort study longitudinally assessed biomarkers along the endothelin-1 (ET-1) and nitric oxide (cGMP, ADMA, SDMA, nitrite, and S-nitrosohemoglobin) pathways along with the cGMP/NT-proBNP ratio over 12 months in patients with WHO Group 1 PAH on oral PAH-specific therapies. The relationship between biomarkers and 6MWD at the same and future visits was examined using mixed linear regression models adjusted for age. As cGMP can be elevated when NT-proBNP is elevated, we also tested the relationship between 6MWD and the cGMP/NT-pro BNP ratio. Patients with PAH with concomitant heart or lung disease or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) were included in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The study cohort included 58 patients with PAH treated with either an endothelin receptor antagonist (27.6%), phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor (25.9%) or a combination of the two (43.1%). Among biomarkers along the current therapeutic pathways, ET-1 and the cGMP/NT-proBNP ratio associated with same visit 6MWD (p = 0.02 and p = 0.03 respectively), and ET-1 predicted future 6MWD (p = 0.02). ET-1 (p = 0.01) and cGMP/NT-proBNP ratio (p = 0.04) also predicted future 6MWD in the larger cohort (n = 108) of PAH patients with concomitant left heart disease (n = 17), lung disease (n = 20), or CTEPH (n = 13). Finally, in the larger cohort, SDMA associated with 6MWD at the same visit (p = 0.01) in all subgroups and ADMA associated with 6MWD in PAH patients with concomitant lung disease (p = 0.03) and PAH patients on ERA therapy (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: ET-1, cGMP/NTproBNP ratio, and dimethylarginines ADMA and SDMA are mediators along pathways targeted by oral PAH therapies that associate with or predict 6MWD.

Portable Ventilation/Perfusion Scanning is Useful for Evaluating Clinically Significant Pulmonary Embolism in the ICU Despite Abnormal Chest Radiography.

OBJECTIVE: Computed tomography angiography is limited in the intensive care unit (ICU) due to renal insufficiency, hemodynamic instability, and difficulty transporting unstable patients. A portable ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scan can be used. However, it is commonly believed that an abnormal chest radiograph can result in a nondiagnostic scan. In this retrospective study, we demonstrate that portable V/Q scans can be helpful in ruling in or out clinically significant pulmonary embolism (PE) despite an abnormal chest x-ray in the ICU. DESIGN: Two physicians conducted chart reviews and original V/Q reports. A staff radiologist, with 40 years of experience, rated chest x-ray abnormalities using predetermined criteria. SETTING: The study was conducted in the ICU. PATIENTS: The first 100 consecutive patients with suspected PE who underwent a portable V/Q scan. INTERVENTIONS: Those with a portable V/Q scan. RESULTS: A normal baseline chest radiograph was found in only 6% of patients. Fifty-three percent had moderate, 24% had severe, and 10% had very-severe radiographic abnormalities. Despite the abnormal x-rays, 88% of the V/Q scans were low probability for a PE despite an average abnormal radiograph rating of moderate. A high-probability V/Q for PE was diagnosed in 3% of the population despite chest x-ray ratings of moderate to severe. Six patients had their empiric anticoagulation discontinued after obtaining the results of the V/Q scan, and no anticoagulation was started for PE after a low-probability V/Q scan. CONCLUSION: Despite the large percentage of moderate-to-severe x-ray abnormalities, PE can still be diagnosed (high-probability scan) in the ICU with a portable V/Q scan. Although low-probability scans do not rule out acute PE, it appeared less likely that any patient with a low-probability V/Q scan had severe hypoxemia or hemodynamic instability due to a significant PE, which was useful to clinicians and allowed them to either stop or not start anticoagulation.

Use of the Bedside-Placed Angel Catheter IVC Filter for Venous Thromboembolic Disease in Critically Ill Medical Patients.

Venous thromboembolic disease is a major problem among critically ill patients, with significant associated morbidity and mortality. Many critically ill patients have contraindications to systemic anticoagulation, and inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are an important alternative in preventing pulmonary emboli (PE) in this population. The Angel Catheter (Mermaid, Stenlose, Denmark) is a novel percutaneous and removable IVC filter attached to the end of a triple lumen central venous catheter which has been demonstrated to reduce PE in surgical and trauma patients. This case series describes 18 critically ill medical patients who had an Angel catheter placed either for diagnosed PE or due to high risk for PE; over half had at least submassive PE at the time of Angel catheter placement. None of the patients had a recurrence of PE during Angel catheter use, 29.4% had clot found in the filter via cavogram upon removal, and only one had a minor complication which had no clinical consequence. In 2 patients, the placement of the Angel Catheter resulted in the prevention of PE during catheter-directed thrombolysis of extensive deep vein thrombosis. This case series demonstrates that in a population of critically ill, elderly, and obese medical patients the bedside placement of the Angel IVC filter is feasible, safe, and may be effective for preventing PE.

Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Tool to Rule Out COVID-19 Among Adults in the Emergency Department Using Routine Blood Tests: A Large, Multicenter, Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Conventional diagnosis of COVID-19 with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing (hereafter, PCR) is associated with prolonged time to diagnosis and significant costs to run the test. The SARS-CoV-2 virus might lead to characteristic patterns in the results of widely available, routine blood tests that could be identified with machine learning methodologies. Machine learning modalities integrating findings from these common laboratory test results might accelerate ruling out COVID-19 in emergency department patients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop (ie, train and internally validate with cross-validation techniques) and externally validate a machine learning model to rule out COVID 19 using only routine blood tests among adults in emergency departments. METHODS: Using clinical data from emergency departments (EDs) from 66 US hospitals before the pandemic (before the end of December 2019) or during the pandemic (March-July 2020), we included patients aged ≥20 years in the study time frame. We excluded those with missing laboratory results. Model training used 2183 PCR-confirmed cases from 43 hospitals during the pandemic; negative controls were 10,000 prepandemic patients from the same hospitals. External validation used 23 hospitals with 1020 PCR-confirmed cases and 171,734 prepandemic negative controls. The main outcome was COVID 19 status predicted using same-day routine laboratory results. Model performance was assessed with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve as well as sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: Of 192,779 patients included in the training, external validation, and sensitivity data sets (median age decile 50 [IQR 30-60] years, 40.5% male [78,249/192,779]), AUROC for training and external validation was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.92). Using a risk score cutoff of 1.0 (out of 100) in the external validation data set, the model achieved sensitivity of 95.9% and specificity of 41.7%; with a cutoff of 2.0, sensitivity was 92.6% and specificity was 59.9%. At the cutoff of 2.0, the NPVs at a prevalence of 1%, 10%, and 20% were 99.9%, 98.6%, and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning model developed with multicenter clinical data integrating commonly collected ED laboratory data demonstrated high rule-out accuracy for COVID-19 status, and might inform selective use of PCR-based testing.

Percutaneous Thrombectomy in Emergency Department Patients with Pulmonary Embolism: The FLARE ED Sub-study.

BACKGROUND: The FlowTriever Pulmonary Embolectomy Clinical Study (FLARE) was a multicenter, single-arm trial that demonstrated effectiveness of the FlowTriever percutaneous pulmonary embolectomy system in reducing right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) diameter ratio in patients with acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism (PE). Patients diagnosed in emergency departments (EDs) with acute PE may have a different presentation from those diagnosed in an in-hospital setting. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this sub-study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of mechanical embolectomy in ED patients with acute intermediate-risk PE. METHODS: ED patients with acute PE and RV/LV ratio ≥ 0.9 enrolled in the FLARE study were core laboratory analyzed. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in RV/LV ratio from baseline to 48 h post procedure. The change in RV/LV ratio of patients with nonelevated cardiac troponin (cTn) and zero simplified PE Severity Index (sPESI) score (normal cTn-sPESI: intermediate-low risk) was also examined. Major adverse events (MAEs) included major bleeding, device-related death or clinical deterioration, and vascular or cardiac injury. RESULTS: Seventy-six ED patients were included. Thirty-nine had a sPESI score of ≥ 1 and 32 had elevated cTn. The median preprocedure RV/LV ratio for all ED patients was 1.50 (0.88-2.52), with a change by -0.37 postprocedure (p < 0.001.) Three patients experienced MAEs. Seventeen patients (22.4%) presented with normal cTn-sPESI and had an RV/LV ratio reduced by 0.27 (p < 0.001) after embolectomy. CONCLUSION: ED patients with intermediate-risk PE had significant improvement in their RV/LV ratio and low complication rates when treated with mechanical embolectomy, irrespective of their baseline cTn-sPESI risk score.