Contemporary practice patterns and outcomes of systemic thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism.

OBJECTIVE: Although systemic thrombolysis (ST) is the standard of care in the treatment of high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE), large variations in real-world usage exist, including its use to treat intermediate-risk PE. A paucity of data is available to define the outcomes and practice patterns of the ST dose, duration, and treatment of presumed and imaging-confirmed PE. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate the real-world practice patterns of ST use in the setting of acute PE (presumed vs imaging-confirmed intermediate- and high-risk PE). Patients who had received tissue plasminogen activator for PE between 2017 and 2019 were included. We compared the baseline clinical characteristics, tissue plasminogen activator practice patterns, and outcomes for patients with confirmed vs presumed PE. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients had received ST for PE: 52 with confirmed PE and 52 with presumed PE. Significantly more patients who had been treated for presumed PE had experienced cardiac arrest (n = 47; 90%) compared with those with confirmed PE (n = 23; 44%; P < .01). Survival to hospital discharge was 65% for the patients with confirmed PE vs 6% for those with presumed PE (P < .01). The use of ST was contraindicated for 56% of the patients with confirmed PE, with major bleeding in 26% but no intracranial hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: The in-hospital mortality of patients with confirmed acute PE has remained high (35%) in contemporary practice for those treated with ST. A large proportion of these patients had had contraindications to ST, and the rates of major bleeding were significant. Those with confirmed PE had had a higher survival rate compared with those with presumed PE, including those with cardiac arrest. This observation suggests a limited role for empiric thrombolysis in cardiac arrest situations.

Evaluating time to treatment and in-hospital outcomes of pulmonary embolism response teams.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have become increasingly popular at institutions around the country, although the evidence to support their efficacy is limited. PERTs are mechanisms for rapid involvement of a multidisciplinary team in the management of a time-sensitive condition with many treatment options. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 201 patients with PERT activations since inception, collecting data on demographics, time to treatment, treatment modality, and in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Massive pulmonary embolism accounted for 16 (8.7%) PERT activations. The majority of patients were treated without invasive intervention; 91.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1%-95.7%) of patients received anticoagulation alone, 4.5% (95% CI, 0%-18.6%) had catheter-directed therapy (CDT), and 3.0% (95% CI, 0%-16.9%) had systemic administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). The average time to intervention was 665 minutes (95% CI, 249-1080 minutes) for CDT and 22 minutes (95% CI, 0-456 minutes) for systemic TPA. The average time to anticoagulation was 2.3 minutes (95% CI, 0-43 minutes). There was a trend toward higher rates of cardiac events (odds ratio [OR], 12.68; 95% CI, 0.62-65.74) and death (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 0.28-5.18) among patients with massive PE. There was a higher rate of cardiac events (OR, 5.66; 95% CI, 1.34-23.83) among patients who received tPA or an invasive intervention. There was no difference in mortality rates of patients who underwent aggressive management compared with anticoagulation alone. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated PERT results in efficient delivery of care and excellent outcomes, in part owing to the rapid (on average, 8 minutes) time to initiation of a multidisciplinary discussion. Patients who ultimately underwent CDT had an interval of >10 hours on average between diagnosis and CDT. This provisional or delayed approach to CDT in selected patients who were not improving with anticoagulation alone (and therefore had potential for higher net benefit from a procedure with its own inherent risks) may have resulted in a lower rate of CDT.

Design and implementation of a clinical decision support tool for primary palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER).

BACKGROUND: The emergency department is a critical juncture in the trajectory of care of patients with serious, life-limiting illness. Implementation of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool automates identification of older adults who may benefit from palliative care instead of relying upon providers to identify such patients, thus improving quality of care by assisting providers with adhering to guidelines. The Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) study aims to optimize the use of the electronic health record by creating a CDS tool to identify high risk patients most likely to benefit from primary palliative care and provide point-of-care clinical recommendations. METHODS: A clinical decision support tool entitled Emergency Department Supportive Care Clinical Decision Support (Support-ED) was developed as part of an institutionally-sponsored value based medicine initiative at the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Emergency Medicine at NYU Langone Health. A multidisciplinary approach was used to develop Support-ED including: a scoping review of ED palliative care screening tools; launch of a workgroup to identify patient screening criteria and appropriate referral services; initial design and usability testing via the standard System Usability Scale questionnaire, education of the ED workforce on the Support-ED background, purpose and use, and; creation of a dashboard for monitoring and feedback. RESULTS: The scoping review identified the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) survey as a validated instrument in which to adapt and apply for the creation of the CDS tool. The multidisciplinary workshops identified two primary objectives of the CDS: to identify patients with indicators of serious life limiting illness, and to assist with referrals to services such as palliative care or social work. Additionally, the iterative design process yielded three specific patient scenarios that trigger a clinical alert to fire, including: 1) when an advance care planning document was present, 2) when a patient had a previous disposition to hospice, and 3) when historical and/or current clinical data points identify a serious life-limiting illness without an advance care planning document present. Monitoring and feedback indicated a need for several modifications to improve CDS functionality. CONCLUSIONS: CDS can be an effective tool in the implementation of primary palliative care quality improvement best practices. Health systems should thoughtfully consider tailoring their CDSs in order to adapt to their unique workflows and environments. The findings of this research can assist health systems in effectively integrating a primary palliative care CDS system seamlessly into their processes of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03424109. Registered 6 February 2018, Grant Number: AT009844-01.

COST SAVINGS AND PALLIATIVE CARE REFERRALS FROM THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT.

Early palliative care consultation ha the potential to provide comfort to patients and families, and decrease costs and length of stay.