Discharge from the emergency department and outpatient clinic in cancer patients with acute symptomatic and incidental pulmonary embolism: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how often cancer patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are discharged from the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic and whether direct discharge is safe. We assessed treatment setting and early safety outcomes in cancer patients with acute symptomatic and incidental PE. METHODS: Cancer patients diagnosed with PE at the ED or outpatient clinic between August 2017 and May 2021 were included in Four Cities VTE Cancer, a Dutch multicenter retrospective cohort study. The main outcome was direct discharge versus hospitalization. Safety outcomes were cumulative 14-day mortality and PE-related readmission incidences. RESULTS: We included 602 patients (median age 71 years; 49.5 % female) of whom 285 (47.3 %) were discharged directly and 317 (52.7 %) were hospitalized. The cumulative 14-day mortality incidence was 0.7 % (95 % CI, 0.1-2.4 %) in patients discharged directly and 9.0 % (95 % CI, 6.2-12.5 %) in those hospitalized. The cumulative 14-day PE-related readmission incidence was 1.8 % (95 % CI, 0.7-3.9 %) and 1.4 % (95 % CI, 0.5-3.3 %) in directly discharged and hospitalized patients, respectively. Of the 220 patients with incidental PE, 180 (81.8 %) were discharged directly compared to 105 of 382 (27.5 %) patients with symptomatic PE (P < 0.001). Mortality and readmission incidences in symptomatic and incidental PE were consistent with the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: About 28 % and 82 % of cancer patients with symptomatic or incidental PE, respectively, were discharged directly, with low 14-day mortality and PE-related readmission incidences. These data underline the need for PE risk stratification in oncological populations and suggest that clinicians successfully identify a proportion of patients in whom direct discharge is safe.

Impact of pulmonary infarction in pulmonary embolism on presentation and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary infarction (PI) is relatively common in pulmonary embolism (PE). The association between PI and persistent symptoms or adverse events is largely unknown. AIM: To evaluate the predictive value of radiological PI signs at acute PE diagnosis on 3-month outcomes. METHODS: We studied a convenience cohort with computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA)-confirmed PE for whom extensive 3-month follow-up data were available. The CTPAs were re-evaluated for signs of suspected PI. Associations with presenting symptoms, adverse events (recurrent thrombosis, PE-related readmission and mortality) and self-reported persistent symptoms (dyspnea, pain and post-PE functional impairment) at 3-month follow-up were investigated using univariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: At re-evaluation of the CTPAs, 57 of 99 patients (58 %) had suspected PI, comprising a median of 1 % (IQR 1-3) of total lung parenchyma. Patients with suspected PI more often presented with hemoptysis (11 % vs. 0 %) and pleural pain (OR 2.7, 95%CI 1.2-6.2), and with more proximal PE on CTPA (OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.1-2.4) than patients without suspected PI. There was no association with adverse events, persistent dyspnea or pain at 3-month follow-up, but signs of PI predicted more functional impairment (OR 3.03, 95%CI 1.01-9.13). Sensitivity analysis with the largest infarctions (upper tertile of infarction volume) yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: PE patients radiologically suspected of PI had a different clinical presentation than patients without those signs and reported more functional limitations after 3 months of follow-up, a finding that could guide patient counselling.

Pulmonary infarction in acute pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary infarction results from occlusion of the distal pulmonary arteries leading to ischemia, hemorrhage and ultimately necrosis of the lung parenchyma. It is most commonly caused by acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with a reported incidence of around 30%. Following an occlusion of the pulmonary artery, the bronchial arteries are recruited as primary source of perfusion of the pulmonary capillaries. The relatively higher blood pressure in the bronchial circulation causes an increase in the capillary blood flow, leading to extravasation of erythrocytes (i.e. alveolar hemorrhage). If this hemorrhage cannot be resorbed, it results in tissue necrosis and infarction. Different definitions of pulmonary infarction are used in literature (clinical, radiological and histological), although the diagnosis is nowadays mostly based on radiological characteristics. Notably, the infarcted area is only replaced by a fibrotic scar over a period of months. Hence and formally, the diagnosis of pulmonary infarction cannot be confirmed upon diagnosis of acute PE. Little is known of the impact and relevance of pulmonary infarction in acute PE, and whether specific management strategies should be applied to prevent and/or treat complications such as pain, pneumonia or post-PE syndrome. In this review we will summarize current knowledge on the pathophysiology, epidemiology, diagnosis and prognosis of pulmonary infarction in the setting of acute PE. We highlight the need for dedicated studies to overcome the current knowledge gaps.

Prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 related venous thromboembolism.

COVID-19 pneumonia has been associated with high rates of thrombo-embolic complications, mostly venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is thought to be a combination of conventional VTE and in situ immunothrombosis in the pulmonary vascular tree. The incidence of thrombotic complications is dependent on setting (intensive care unit (ICU) versus general ward) and the threshold for performing diagnostic tests (screening versus diagnostic algorithms triggered by symptoms). Since these thrombotic complications are associated with in-hospital mortality, all current guidelines and consensus papers propose pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Several trials are ongoing to study the optimal intensity of anticoagulation for this purpose. As for the management of thrombotic complications, treatment regimens from non-COVID-19 guidelines can be adapted, with choice of anticoagulant drug class dependent on the situation. Parenteral anticoagulation is preferred for patients on ICUs or with impending clinical deterioration, while oral treatment can be started in stable patients. This review describes current knowledge on incidence and pathophysiology of COVID-19 associated VTE and provides an overview of guideline recommendations on thromboprophylaxis and treatment of established VTE in COVID-19 patients.

Incidence of thrombotic complications and overall survival in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the second and first wave.

INTRODUCTION: In the first wave, thrombotic complications were common in COVID-19 patients. It is unknown whether state-of-the-art treatment has resulted in less thrombotic complications in the second wave. METHODS: We assessed the incidence of thrombotic complications and overall mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to eight Dutch hospitals between September 1st and November 30th 2020. Follow-up ended at discharge, transfer to another hospital, when they died, or on November 30th 2020, whichever came first. Cumulative incidences were estimated, adjusted for competing risk of death. These were compared to those observed in 579 patients admitted in the first wave, between February 24th and April 26th 2020, by means of Cox regression techniques adjusted for age, sex and weight. RESULTS: In total 947 patients with COVID-19 were included in this analysis, of whom 358 patients were admitted to the ICU; 144 patients died (15%). The adjusted cumulative incidence of all thrombotic complications after 10, 20 and 30 days was 12% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8-15%), 16% (13-19%) and 21% (17-25%), respectively. Patient characteristics between the first and second wave were comparable. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for overall mortality in the second wave versus the first wave was 0.53 (95%CI 0.41-0.70). The adjusted HR for any thrombotic complication in the second versus the first wave was 0.89 (95%CI 0.65-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was reduced by 47% in the second wave, but the thrombotic complication rate remained high, and comparable to the first wave. Careful attention to provision of adequate thromboprophylaxis is invariably warranted.

Confirmation of the high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19: An updated analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We recently reported a high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) of three Dutch hospitals. In answering questions raised regarding our study, we updated our database and repeated all analyses. METHODS: We re-evaluated the incidence of the composite outcome of symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep-vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction and/or systemic arterial embolism in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICUs of 2 Dutch university hospitals and 1 Dutch teaching hospital from ICU admission to death, ICU discharge or April 22nd 2020, whichever came first. RESULTS: We studied the same 184 ICU patients as reported on previously, of whom a total of 41 died (22%) and 78 were discharged alive (43%). The median follow-up duration increased from 7 to 14 days. All patients received pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of the composite outcome, adjusted for competing risk of death, was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41-57%). The majority of thrombotic events were PE (65/75; 87%). In the competing risk model, chronic anticoagulation therapy at admission was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome (Hazard Ratio [HR] 0.29, 95%CI 0.091-0.92). Patients diagnosed with thrombotic complications were at higher risk of all-cause death (HR 5.4; 95%CI 2.4-12). Use of therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with all-cause death (HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.35-1.8). CONCLUSION: In this updated analysis, we confirm the very high cumulative incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Incidence of thrombotic complications in critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 may predispose to both venous and arterial thromboembolism due to excessive inflammation, hypoxia, immobilisation and diffuse intravascular coagulation. Reports on the incidence of thrombotic complications are however not available. METHODS: We evaluated the incidence of the composite outcome of symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism (PE), deep-vein thrombosis, ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction or systemic arterial embolism in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of 2 Dutch university hospitals and 1 Dutch teaching hospital. RESULTS: We studied 184 ICU patients with proven COVID-19 pneumonia of whom 23 died (13%), 22 were discharged alive (12%) and 139 (76%) were still on the ICU on April 5th 2020. All patients received at least standard doses thromboprophylaxis. The cumulative incidence of the composite outcome was 31% (95%CI 20-41), of which CTPA and/or ultrasonography confirmed VTE in 27% (95%CI 17-37%) and arterial thrombotic events in 3.7% (95%CI 0-8.2%). PE was the most frequent thrombotic complication (n = 25, 81%). Age (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.05/per year, 95%CI 1.004-1.01) and coagulopathy, defined as spontaneous prolongation of the prothrombin time > 3 s or activated partial thromboplastin time > 5 s (aHR 4.1, 95%CI 1.9-9.1), were independent predictors of thrombotic complications. CONCLUSION: The 31% incidence of thrombotic complications in ICU patients with COVID-19 infections is remarkably high. Our findings reinforce the recommendation to strictly apply pharmacological thrombosis prophylaxis in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU, and are strongly suggestive of increasing the prophylaxis towards high-prophylactic doses, even in the absence of randomized evidence.