Lead-associated Superior Vena Cava Syndrome.

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a rare complication associated with transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices that may present with a variety of manifestations. Various strategies such as transvenous lead extraction, anticoagulation, venoplasty, and stenting have been used to treat this condition, but the optimal management protocols have yet to be defined. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (S-ICD) therapy can be an alternative option to a transvenous system for those who require future ICD surveillance. We present a case of lead-associated SVC syndrome where thoracic venous congestion due to SVC obstruction influenced preimplant S-ICD QRS vector screening. Following treatment of venous obstruction, QRS amplitude may change and patients who were not initially S-ICD candidates may later become eligible.

Acute pulmonary embolism following recent hospitalization or surgery.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recent hospitalization or surgery is a leading risk factor for PE, yet there are minimal data examining its effect on treatment and outcomes. We conducted a retrospective review of institutional billing codes for hospitalized patients with acute PE from August 2012 to August 2018. Patients were stratified based on whether they had a recent major medical encounter (MME), defined as surgery or hospitalization within 90 days. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and 30- and 90-day readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), use of advanced therapies, major bleeding, discharge anticoagulation and recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 90 days. Outcomes were adjusted for confounders using multivariable regression modeling. 2063 patients were hospitalized for an acute PE; 633 (30.7%) had a recent MME. Patients with a recent MME had a higher average Charlson Comorbidity Index (4.6 vs. 4.0, p < 0.01). Both 30- and 90-day readmission rates were higher in patients with a recent MME (21.7% vs. 14.4%; adjusted OR 1.06 [1.00, 1.12], p = 0.037; 30.8% vs 18.7%; adjusted OR 1.11 [1.11, 1.62], p = 0.003, respectively). After adjustment, there were no between-group differences in in-hospital mortality, LOS, use of advanced therapies, major bleeding, or recurrent VTE at 90 days. In-hospital mortality was higher for patients with a recent medical hospitalization compared to those with a recent surgery (10.2% vs. 5.6%, adjusted OR 1.08 [1.01, 1.15] p = 0.032). Despite recent hospitalization and/or surgery and greater number of comorbidities, patients admitted with a PE and recent MME had similar in-hospital outcomes, but experienced higher readmission rates. In-hospital mortality was higher in those with a recent medical compared to surgical encounter. Clinicians should optimize post-discharge transitional care in this subset of patients.

Changes in Care for Acute Pulmonary Embolism Through A Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of acute pulmonary embolism requires expertise offered by multiple subspecialties. As such, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have increased in prevalence, but the institutional consequences of a PERT are unclear. METHODS: We compared all patients that presented to our institution with an acute pulmonary embolism in the 3 years prior to and 3 years after the formation of our PERT. The primary outcome was in-hospital pulmonary embolism-related mortality before and after the formation of the PERT. Sub-analyses were performed among patients with elevated-risk pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: Between August 2012 and August 2018, 2042 patients were hospitalized at our institution with acute pulmonary embolism, 884 (41.3%) pre-PERT implementation and 1158 (56.7%) post-PERT implementation, of which 165 (14.2%) were evaluated by the PERT. There was no difference in pulmonary embolism-related mortality between the two time periods (2.6% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.9% post-PERT implementation, P = .89). There was increased risk stratification assessment by measurement of cardiac biomarkers and echocardiograms post-PERT implementation. Overall utilization of advanced therapy was similar between groups (5.4% pre-PERT implementation vs 5.4% post-PERT implementation, P = 1.0), with decreased use of systemic thrombolysis (3.8% pre-PERT implementation vs 2.1% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.02) and increased catheter-directed therapy (1.3% pre-PERT implementation vs 3.3% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.05) post-PERT implementation. Inferior vena cava filter use decreased after PERT implementation (10.7% pre-PERT implementation vs 6.9% post-PERT implementation, P = 0.002). Findings were similar when analyzing elevated-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Pulmonary embolism response teams may increase risk stratification assessment and alter application of advanced therapies, but a mortality benefit was not identified.

Can an emergency department clinical "triggers" program based on abnormal vital signs improve patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Because abnormal vital signs indicate the potential for clinical deterioration, it is logical to make emergency physicians immediately aware of those patients who present with abnormal vital signs. OBJECTIVES: To determine if a clinical triggers program in the emergency department (ED) setting that utilized predetermined abnormal vital signs to activate a rapid assessment by an emergency physician-led multidisciplinary team had a measurable effect on inpatient hospital metrics. METHODS: The study design was a retrospective pre and post intervention study. The intervention was the implementation of an ED clinical "triggers" program. Abnormal vital sign criteria that warranted a trigger response included: heart rate 130 beats/minutes, respiratory rate 30 breaths/minute, systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, or oxygen saturation <90% on room air. The primary outcome investigated was the median days admitted with secondary outcomes of median days in special care unit, in-hospital 30-day mortality and proportion of patients who required an upgrade in inpatient care level. RESULTS: There was no difference in median days admitted for inpatient care (3.8 v. 4.0 days, p=0.21) or median days spent in a special care unit (5.0 v. 5.6 days, p=0.42) between the groups. There was no difference in the percentage of in-hospital patient deaths (6.0% v. 5.6%, p=0.66) or frequency of upgrade in level of care within 24 hours (4.9% v. 4.0%, p=0.52). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the implementation of an ED clinical triggers program did not result in a significant change in measured inpatient outcomes.