Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Controversies in the management of Pulmonary Embolism

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Controversies in the management of Pulmonary Embolism"— Presentation transcript:

1 Controversies in the management of Pulmonary Embolism
Joel Frankel, MD, FACP, FCCP Plantation General Hospital February 27, 2014

2 Clinical Case 62 y.o. male presents to ED with 48 hours of worsening dyspnea after returning from a 3 day business trip to China Vitals: BP 110/60, P 102, O2 sat 86% on RA PE: Distended neck veins, RR w/o murmur, lungs clear, normal LE exam D Dimer = 2496 CT chest multiple thrombi in PA and dilated right ventricle Management?

3 Questions Which form of Heparin? Disposition Lovenox (1 mg/kg SC)
Unfractionated Heparin (80 U/kg bolus; 18 U/kg drip) Disposition ICU Medicine Home

4 Very Simple Goals Remember atypical cases Know why PE is missed
Make your chart bullet proof

5 Why is the diagnosis delayed or missed?
Not considering the diagnosis Presentation too atypical PE looks like many diseases The obvious miss Misinterpretation of studies Reliance on normal VS

6 Elevated troponin Not just in MI !!! Myocarditis, tachycardia
CHF, pericarditis, stroke, sepsis Pulmonary embolism

7 Who do we miss the diagnosis in?
Obese females on OCP Patients with medical comorbidities

8 The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) rule
Less than 2% chance of PE if clinician pre-test probability < 15% and all of the following: Age < 50 HR < 100 SpO2 > 96% No unilateral leg swelling No hemoptysis No recent trauma No h/o VTE/PE No OCP/exogenous estrogen use

9 PE myths All patients with PE are tachycardic
About 50% Hypoxia is usually present Most patients have risk factors 20-25 % with risk factors Classic presentation common

10 Protective documentation
Thought process Leg exam, Homan’s sign Risk factor analysis Clinical gestalt Clinical decision rule

11 The chart Any patient with cardiopulmonary symptoms VTE risk factors
Attention to the VS Leg exam Evidence that you thought about VTE

12 Epidemiology PE is common PE has high morbidity and mortality
600, ,000 patients annually in US PE has high morbidity and mortality Mortality rate 10 – 17.5% overall Likely responsible for over 50,000 deaths annually Optimal management can improve these outcomes

13 Questions for Discussion
Which is the optimal form of heparin to be used in the treatment of PE? Do all patients with a new diagnosis of PE need to be admitted? When are thrombolytics indicated in the management of PE?

14 Which is the optimal form of heparin to be used in the treatment of PE?
Options for bridging anticoagulation in acute PE Unfractionated heparin (UFH) Low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) LMWH has multiple potential advantages over UFH Use of LMWH for most patients is standard of care and recommended by multiple professional societies

15 Evidence Supporting Use
Multiple RCTs have established efficacy and safety between LMWH and UFH for the treatment of PE 3 month recurrence of VTE: 3.0% vs. 4.4 % (NS) Major bleeding: 1.3% vs. 2.1 % (NS)

16 Other Considerations LMWH is renally cleared – use with caution with poor renal function UFH preferred in hemodynamically unstable patients, especially if considering thrombolysis No clear difference in efficacy or safetey when comparing once a day (1.5 mg/kg) vs. twice a day (1 mg/kg) dosing regimens

17 Do all patients with a new diagnosis of PE need to be admitted?
Current standard of care is outpatient management for DVT 30-40% of patients with DVTs have been found to have asymptomatic PEs Although DVT and PE have different outcomes, they exist on the same spectrum of disease (VTE) Likely there is some group of low-risk patients with PE that can be managed similarly to DVT

18 Aujesky et al 2011 Open-label, multi-center, international, non-inferiority, RCT 339 adult patients with confirmed acute PE randomized to inpatient vs. outpatient management Outpatients treated with 1 mg/kg LMWH BID until INR > 2.0 for > 2 days Primary end-point was recurrent VTE Secondary end-points included Major bleeding All cause mortality

19 Inclusion/Exclusion Patients excluded if any of the following
Pulmonary Embolus Severity Score of I or II (<86 points) Patients excluded if any of the following O2 sat < 90% SBP < 100 mmHg Chest pain requiring IV opiates Active bleeding Stroke within 10 days GI bleed within 14 days < 75,000 platelets Cr Clearance < 30 Extreme obesity (>150 kg) History of HIT Already being treated with oral anticoagulant Any barriers to follow up Points Assigned Age +1/year Male +10 Cancer +30 Heart Failure Chronic Lung Disease Pulse > 100 bpm +20 SPB < 100 mm Hg RR > 30 bpm T < 36 degrees C Altered Mental Status +60 Oxygen Sat < 90%

20 Outcomes *P-value represents one-sided p-value for non-inferiority
Outpatient Group (n=171) Inpatient Group (n=168) P-Value* 90-day outcomes Recurrent VTE 1 (0.6%) 0 (0%) 0.011 Major Bleeding 3 (1.8%) 0.086 Mortality 0.005 14-day outcomes 0.003 2 (1.2%) 0.031 *P-value represents one-sided p-value for non-inferiority

21 Erkens et al 2010 Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with confirmed acute PE Decision for outpatient treatment by treating physician based on hospital protocol SPB > 100 mmHG O2 sat > 92% No contraindication to LMWH Does not need admission for other reasons Outpatients treated with LMWH Patient followed-up at 14 days and 90 days

22 Outcomes Outpatient Group (n=260) Inpatient Group (n=213) P-Value*
90-day outcomes Recurrent VTE 10 (3.8%) 10 (4.7%) 0.654 Major Bleeding 4 (1.5%) 17 (8.0%) 0.001 Readmission Rate 6 (2.3%) 11 (5.2%) 0.135 Mortality* 5 (5%) 57 (26.7%) <0.001 14-day outcomes 1 (0.4%) 4 (1.9%) 0.180 0 (0%) 13 (6.1%) 1.0 27 (12.7%)

23 Are there other factors that can help risk stratify patients?
Troponin is a predictor of complicated clinical course or death NPV for death 96-97% NPV for complicated clinical course 92-94% Pro-BNP is a predictor of mortality or adverse outcomes NPV for death 99% NPV for adverse outcome 95% RV dysfunction on CT NPV for PE related death 100%

24 Take Home Message Outpatient management of PE is not common practice currently, but feasible and safe in selected low-risk patients with acute PE Standard of care is likely to shift in the near future given pressures to lower resource utilization It is reasonable to offer outpatient management in the patient with low PE severity index, normal BP, normal O2 sats, normal EKG, normal troponin, normal pro-BNP, and no evidence of RV dysfunction An informed discussion with the patient and careful documentation are necessary to attempt this approach

25 When are thrombolytics indicated in the management of PE?
Risk of Bleeding with Thrombolysis in PE Fatal Hemorrhage: 0.5 % Intracranial Hemorrhage : % Major Hemorrhage: % Potential Benefits of Decreasing Mortality PE recurrence Pulmonary Hypertension In-Hospital Complications

26 Differences in Outcomes
The mortality of patients with PE vary depending on the clinical circumstances Cardiac Arrest: 66-95% Massive PE: 22-53% Submassive PE: 8-13% Uncomplicated PE: 1-4% The clinical circumstances should drive decision making with the use of thrombolytics

27 Contraindications to Fibrinolytics
Trauma within 15 days Uncontrolled HTN (SBP > 180; DBP > 100) Hemorrhagic disorder or thrombocytopenia (<100,000) Impaired hepatic or renal function GI bleeding within 10 days Pregnancy Active internal bleeding Recent intracranial bleeding Intracranial tumor or seizure history Ischemic stroke within 2 months Neurosurgery within the past 1 month Surgery within the past 10 days Puncture of non-compressible vessel within past 10 days

28 Cardiac Arrest 10-20% of all PE cases
Dismal outcomes with 66-95% mortality No RCTs address this clinical scenario 3 major studies show significant increase in ROSC rate and trend toward increased survival in cardiac arrest Overall bleeding complication rare is low when used in cardiac arrest Multiple professional societies have supported use of thrombolytics in this clinical situation

29 Bottiger et al 2001 90 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest undergoing CPR without ROSC within 15 minutes 40 patients received 50 mg tPA and 5000 U of heparin as bolus vs. 50 patients with standard ACLS ROSC: 68% vs. 58% (p=0.026) Survival to ICU admission: 58% vs. 44% (p=0.009) 24 hr Survival: 35% vs. 22% (p=0.171) Hospital Discharge: 15% vs. 8% (NS) No CPR related bleeding complications

30 Lederer et al 2001 324 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest undergoing CPR 108 received 50 mg tPA as bolus vs. 216 with standard ACLS (retrospective) ROSC: 70.4% vs. 51.0% (p=0.001) 24 hr Survival: 48.1% vs. 32.9% (p=0.003) Hospital Discharge: 25% vs. 15.3% (p=0.048) Bleeding complications low ICH 0.9% vs. 0.9% (NS) Major Hemorrhage 4.6% vs. 2.3% (NS)

31 Bozeman et al 2006 163 patients in cardiac arrest undergoing CPR not responding to standard ACLS (prospective) 50 received mg tPA bolus vs. 113 controls with standard ACLS ROSC: 26% vs. 12.4% (p=0.04) Survival to ICU admission: 12% vs. 0% (p=0.0007) 24 hr Survival: 4% vs. 0% (NS) Hospital Discharge: 4%vs. 0% (NS) 1 patient with ICH in tPA group (2%)

32 Take Home Message Although not definitely studied in patients with PE, likely benefit > risk to giving tPA in cardiac arrest with PE is suspected cause Consider historical factors or bedside ultrasonography to guide decision making When given, administer 50 mg tPA and 5000 U UFH as IV bolus May repeat if no ROSC after 15 minutes If ROSC occurs, start continuous infusion of UFH at 18 U/kg/hr

33 Massive PE 5% of all PE cases Mortality 22-53%
5 RCTs that included hemodynamically unstable patients suggest benefit Meta-analysis of RCTs showed significant benefit 2 retrospective studies show trend to benefit Bleeding complications low in selected patients Multiple professional societies recommend use of thrombolytics in this scenario

34 Wan et al 2004 Meta analysis of 11 RCTs comparing thrombolysis + heparin vs. heparin alone Subgroup analysis of 5 RCTs that included hemodynamically unstable patients 128 patients received thrombolysis, 126 received heparin alone Efficacy Outcomes Mortality: 6.2% vs. 12.7% (NS) Recurrent PE: 3.9% vs. 7.1% (NS) Recurrent PE or Death: 9.4% vs. 19% (p<0.05) Bleeding outcomes: 21.9% vs. 11.9% (p=0.05)

35 Take Home Message Data regarding benefit not definitive, but benefit:risk ratio likely to support use in hemodynamically unstable patients Consider use in select patients with CONFIRMED PE and hemodynamic instability keeping in mind patient risk for bleeding complications When given, infuse 10 mg tPA as bolus followed by 90 mg infusion over 2 hours Should be followed by 80 U/kg bolus of heparin followed by 18 U/kg/hr infusion

36 Submassive PE 23-40% of all PE cases
Increased mortality when compared to hemodynamically stable patients without RV dysfunction (9.3% vs. 0.4%) Multiple studies have definitely shown improvement in hemodynamic or radiographic parameters, though improvement in clinical outcomes remains mixed

37 Take Home Message Treatment of patients with submassive PE with thrombolytics is highly controversial Current evidence is conflicting and filled with multiple flaws Use of thrombolytics in this situation does not carry overall support from professional societies and is not standard of care Use of thrombolytics may be considered in select patients with support from sub-specialists

38 Future Directions The Pulmonary EmbolIsm THrOmbolysis (PEITHO) trial is a multi-center international RCT (double-blinded, placebo controlled) currently underway Includes patients with Confirmed acute PE RV dysfunction on Echo or CT chest Elevated Troponin Treatment Protocol Thrombolysis Group: tPA + UFH Control Group: UFH only Outcomes Primary: Composite of Death or Hemodynamic Collapse < 7 days Secondary: Death, Hemodynamic Collapse, Recurrent PE, ICH, Major Bleeding

39 Follow-up on Initial Questions
Which is the optimal form of heparin to be used in the treatment of PE? LMWH in most cases Do all patients with a new diagnosis of PE need to be admitted? There may be a group of very low risk patients that can be managed primarily as outpatients When are thrombolytics indicated in the management of PE? Clearly indicated in cardiac arrest from PE and massive PE without contraindication to fibrinolytics Utility in submassive PE unclear Not indicated in uncomplicated PE

Download ppt "Controversies in the management of Pulmonary Embolism"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google