In-Hospital versus Out-of-Hospital Pulmonary Embolism: Clinical Characteristics, Biochemical Markers and Echocardiographic Indices.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of pulmonary embolisms (PEs) occurs in patients during hospitalisation for another reason. However, limited data regarding differences between out-of-hospital PE (OHPE) and in-hospital PE (IHPE) is available. We aimed to compare these groups regarding their clinical characteristics, biochemical markers, and echocardiographic indices. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm, single-centre study. Adult consecutive patients with non-COVID-related PE from September 2019 to March 2022 were included and followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: The study included 180 (84 women) patients, with 89 (49.4%) suffering from IHPE. IHPE patients were older, they more often had cancer, were diagnosed earlier after the onset of symptoms, they had less frequent pain and higher values of high sensitivity troponin I and brain natriuretic peptide levels compared to OHPE patients. Echocardiographic right ventricular (RV) dysfunction was detected in similar proportions in the 2 groups. IHPE had increased in-hospital mortality (14.6% vs. 3.3%, p = 0.008) and similar post-discharge to 12-month mortality with OHPE patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort study, IHPE differed from OHPE patients regarding age, comorbidities, symptoms, and levels of biomarkers associated with RV dysfunction. IHPE patients had higher in-hospital mortality compared to OHPE patients and a similar risk of death after discharge.

What is the real incidence of right ventricular affection in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?

BACKGROUND: Echocardiographic markers of right ventricular dysfunction or pressure overload (RVd/PO) have been used in risk assessment of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE). Nevertheless, the role of echocardiography in these patients is incompletely determined. We evaluated the right ventricular function using 'non-conventional' markers of RVd/PO in patients with APE. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm, single-centre study. Consecutive adult patients hospitalised for APE were included. The RV free wall longitudinal strain (RV-FWLS), the fractional area change (FAC), the ratio tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE)/pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (PASP), and the pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred patients (mean age 70.0 ± 13.9 years, female 48%) were screened and 73 had adequate RV-FWLS images. The most common abnormal echocardiographic marker was RV-FWLS (44/73; p < 0.001, for all other echocardiographic indices). Thirty-one patients had either PASP ≥ 36 mmHg or PVR > 2 WU (49.2% of the patients with both indices available). There were significant correlations between RV-FWLS, TAPSE/PASP and PVR with both D-Dimers and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and between FAC and BNP. RF-FWLS differed significantly between patients with a simplified pulmonary embolism severity index (sPESI) score 0 and those with a score ≥1 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RVd/PO coexists with APE in a large proportion of patients. RV-FWLS is the most abnormal echocardiographic sign and is related to clinical and biochemical prognostic indices.

The Potential Role of Salivary NT-proBNP in Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Serum natriuretic peptides (NPs) have an established role in heart failure (HF) diagnosis. Saliva NT-proBNP that may be easily acquired has been studied little. METHODS: Ninety-nine subjects were enrolled; thirty-six obese or hypertensive with dyspnoea but no echocardiographic HF findings or raised NPs served as controls, thirteen chronic HF (CHF) patients and fifty patients with acute decompensated HF (ADHF) requiring hospital admission. Electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, 6 min walking distance (6MWD), blood and saliva samples, were acquired in all participants. RESULTS: Serum NT-proBNP ranged from 60-9000 pg/mL and saliva NT-proBNP from 0.64-93.32 pg/mL. Serum NT-proBNP was significantly higher in ADHF compared to CHF (p = 0.007) and in CHF compared to controls (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in saliva values between ADHF and CHF, or between CHF and controls. Saliva and serum levels were positively associated only in ADHF patients (R = 0.352, p = 0.012). Serum NT-proBNP was positively associated with NYHA class (R = 0.506, p < 0.001) and inversely with 6MWD (R = -0.401, p = 0.004) in ADHF. Saliva NT-proBNP only correlated with age in ADHF patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, saliva NT-proBNP correlated with serum values in ADHF patients, but could not discriminate between HF and other causes of dyspnoea. Further research is needed to explore the value of saliva NT-proBNP.