Jump to: Case media – Case teaching – References

---

Case Media

---

Episode Schematics & Teaching

Pearls

Notes

1. What is a PERT team and why is it helpful?

• We have several tools and approaches for the management of PE. There are also many subspecialities involved in the care of patients with PE, including vascular medicine, intervention cardiology, hematology, pulmonology, cardiac surgery, radiology, emergency department, intensive care, and more. As such, the best treatment plan for a given patient with PE can be challenging, especially if the services involved in treatment of the PE function in silos.
• PERT, or PE Response Team, was built to address this concern. It is a multidisciplinary team that originated at MGH whose goal is to coordinate care for high-risk PE patients and advance PE-related care in the institution.
• PERT allows for multidisciplinary expert opinion in the face of scarce evidence to determine what is felt to be the best management strategy.

2. How do we risk stratify patients with PE?

• Risk stratification is largely dependent on the hemodynamic significance caused by the PE. In addition to vital sign derangement, patients with PE should also be evaluated for evidence of cardiac strain due to PE by checking for evidence of RV dilatation on CT or TTE and for elevation of cardiac biomarkers. The combination of this information is used to risk stratify patients. Additionally, risk stratification tools, such as the PESI and sPESI scores, are used to guide risk stratification.
• Based on the ESC 2019 guidelines, PEs are stratified into high risk, intermediate-high risk, intermediate-low risk, or low risk.
  • High risk: evidence of hemodynamic instability as defined by hypotension or shock.
  • Intermediate-high risk: evidence of both RV dysfunction on imaging AND elevated cardiac biomarkers in the absence of HD instability
  • Intermediate-low risk: evidence of either RV dysfunction on imaging OR elevated cardiac biomarkers in the absence of HD instability
  • Low risk: no evidence of cardiac dysfunction on imaging or labs and no evidence of HD instability.
• Risk stratification is important as it helps guide medical management of patients. Important factors that have not been associated with PE severity include degree of thrombus burden and location of clot.

3. What do we know about optimal management of patients with intermediate risk PE?

• Unfortunately, data is fairly limited with regards to the optimal management strategy for patients with intermediate risk PE, namely whether anticoagulation alone is sufficient versus if a patient would benefit from more advanced therapies. All patients should be started on anticoagulation, preferably SQ enoxaparin if comorbidities allow, as soon as possible (if there are no contraindications to anticoagulation). However, choosing which patients would benefit from more advanced therapies remains limited.
• Thrombolysis has been associated with lower all-cause mortality in patients with intermediate-risk PE when compared to anticoagulation alone. However, not surprisingly, thrombolysis was also associated with more major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. In the ULTIMA trial, catheter directed thrombolysis was shown to improve RV dysfunction more quickly compared to anticoagulation at 24 hours. However, at 90 days, there was no difference in degree of RV dysfunction between the two groups.
• Percutaneous thrombectomy devices have been shown to be safe and effective at reducing RV size. However, there are no head-to-head comparisons of these modalities versus anticoagulation or thrombolysis and data is limited regarding the long-term efficacy.
• Choosing the correct patient to proceed with advanced therapies remains challenging and the decision is often made on a case-by-case basis. There are ongoing randomized control trials that will hopefully assist in guiding this decision making.

4. What about management for those with high-risk PE?

• High risk PEs mandate aggressive and rapid treatment.
• Thrombolysis has been shown to have a mortality benefit compared to anticoagulation. 
• Catheter directed thrombolysis can be considered in high-risk PE; however, rapid implementation needs to be available.
• VA-ECMO has also been demonstrated to reduce mortality in these patients.

5. What additional treatment options are available for patients with PE who are not improving on anticoagulation and have a contraindication to thrombolytic therapy?

• There are several contraindications to thrombolytic therapy, including recent surgery, CVA, or bleeding. Percutaneous and surgical thrombectomy should be considered in these patients.
• Surgical thrombectomy is effective but does require significant anticoagulation during the surgery while the patient is on cardiac bypass. For this reason, patients that have a contraindication to thrombolysis might not be able to tolerate the high levels of anticoagulation required for the surgery and thus a surgical thrombectomy might not be a feasible option.
• There are several percutaneous thrombectomy devices on the market currently which have been shown to be safe and effective at reducing the RV size in the acute period. Because these devices do not require thrombolytic agents, the risk of bleeding is lower and there is less ICU utilization. However, there have not been head-to-head comparisons between these devices and other treatment modalities.

---

References

---