Prediction of in-hospital deterioration in normotensive pulmonary embolism remains elusive: external validation of the calgary acute pulmonary embolism score.

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequently diagnosed condition. Prediction of in-hospital deterioration is challenging with current risk models. The Calgary Acute Pulmonary Embolism (CAPE) score was recently derived to predict in-hospital adverse PE outcomes but has not yet been externally validated. Retrospective cohort study of normotensive acute pulmonary embolism cases diagnosed in our emergency department between 2017 and 2019. An external validation of the CAPE score was performed in this population for prediction of in-hospital adverse outcomes and a secondary outcome of 30-day all-cause mortality. Performance of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) and Bova score was also evaluated. 712 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 536 patients having a sPESI score of 1 or more. Among this population, the CAPE score had a weak discriminative power to predict in-hospital adverse outcomes, with a calculated c-statistic of 0.57. In this study population, an external validation study found weak discriminative power of the CAPE score to predict in-hospital adverse outcomes among normotensive PE patients. Further efforts are needed to define risk assessment models that can identify normotensive PE patients at risk for in hospital deterioration. Identification of such patients will better guide intensive care utilization and invasive procedural management of PE.

Adverse Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With Acute Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism and Concerning Computed Tomography Imaging Findings.

Importance: Most patients presenting to US emergency departments (EDs) with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are hospitalized, despite evidence from multiple society-based guidelines recommending consideration of outpatient treatment for those with low risk stratification scores. One barrier to outpatient treatment may be clinician concern regarding findings on PE-protocol computed tomography (CTPE), which are perceived as high risk but not incorporated into commonly used risk stratification tools. Objective: To evaluate the association of concerning CTPE findings with outcomes and treatment of patients in the ED with acute, low-risk PE. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a registry of all acute PEs diagnosed in the adult ED of an academic medical center from October 10, 2016, to December 31, 2019. Acute PE cases were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on PE Severity Index (PESI) class alone or using a combination of PESI class and biomarker results. The low-risk group was further divided based on the presence of concerning CTPE findings: (1) bilateral central embolus, (2) right ventricle-to-left ventricle ratio greater than 1.0, (3) right ventricle enlargement, (4) septal abnormality, or (5) pulmonary infarction. Data analysis was conducted from June to October 2022. Main Outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 7 and 30 days. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization, length of stay, need for intensive care, use of echocardiography and/or bedside ultrasonography, and activation of the PE response team (PERT) . Results: Of 817 patients (median [IQR] age, 58 [47-71] years; 417 (51.0%) female patients; 129 [15.8%] Black and 645 [78.9%] White patients) with acute PEs, 331 (40.5%) were low risk and 486 (59.5%) were high risk by PESI score. Clinical outcomes were similar for all low-risk patients, with no 30-day deaths in the low-risk group with concerning CTPE findings (0 of 151 patients) vs 4 of 180 (2.2%) in the low-risk group without concerning CTPE findings and 88 (18.1%) in the high-risk group (P < .001). Low-risk patients with concerning CTPE findings were less frequently discharged from the ED than those without concerning CTPE findings (3 [2.0%] vs 14 [7.8%]; P = .01) and had more frequent echocardiography (87 [57.6%] vs 49 [27.2%]; P < .001) and PERT activation for consideration of advanced therapies (34 [22.5%] vs 11 [6.1%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center study, CTPE findings widely believed to confer high risk were associated with increased hospitalization and resource utilization in patients with low-risk PE but not short-term adverse clinical outcomes.

Effect of pulmonary embolism response team on advanced therapies administered: The University of Michigan experience.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) were employed at multiple institutions to bridge the gap between varied treatment options for acute PE and unclear evidence for optimal management. There is limited data regarding the impact of PERT on the use of advanced therapies and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center cohort study comparing patients that presented to the ED with an acute PE before and after the creation of PERT in June 2017 at our institution. We assessed utilization of advanced therapies, LOS, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 817 patients (168 pre-PERT, 649 post-PERT) were evaluated in the ED with an acute PE between October 2016 and December 2019. Both groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and PESI score. There was a decrease in advanced therapy use (16 % vs. 7.5 %, p = 0.006) after PERT creation. Most notable decreases were in catheter-based therapies (8.5 % vs. 2.2 %, p = 0.008) and IVC filter placement (5.3 % vs. 3.2 %, p < 0.001). Median ICU LOS (2.5 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.55) and hospital LOS (3.1 vs. 3.0, p = 0.92) did not vary pre-PERT vs. post-PERT. In-hospital mortality (8.5 % vs. 5.0 %, p = 0.29) and 30-day all-cause mortality (1.2 % vs. 0.5 %, p = 0.28) were not different between the two groups as well. CONCLUSION: At our institution, PERT was associated with a decrease in advanced therapies administered to acute PE patients without affecting mortality or LOS. Additional studies to assess impact of this multi-disciplinary care team model on interventional therapies and clinical outcomes for PE at a broader level are necessary.

Shoulder Pseudodislocation Associated with Calcific Tendinitis/Bursitis and Diagnosed by Point of Care Ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pseudodislocation, or "drooping shoulder," presents with acute pain and deformity of the joint, with radiographs demonstrating inferior subluxation of the humeral head relative to the glenoid fossa. The diagnosis must be made promptly and distinguished from true glenohumeral dislocation, both to avoid unnecessary attempts at closed reduction and to facilitate investigation of the underlying cause, which may include septic arthritis, hemarthrosis, or other emergent etiologies. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) may be useful in the evaluation of emergency department (ED) patients with suspected pseudodislocation. CASE REPORT: A 50-year old female presented to the ED with an acutely painful and deformed shoulder but atypical history and physical examination. Initial radiography appeared to show a glenohumeral dislocation, but POCUS, done to guide intra-articular lidocaine injection, led to recognition of pseudodislocation and subsequent diagnosis of calcific tendinitis/bursitis, a condition not previously associated with inferior humeral subluxation. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Shoulder pseudodislocation must be considered in the evaluation of patients with suspected glenohumeral dislocation, but atypical features on history, physical examination, or initial plain radiography. POCUS may facilitate prompt diagnosis and identification of the underlying etiology.