Elective endovascular reperfusion therapies in intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism after PERT assesment
Authors: Cigalini I , Najenson M , Petry C , Cardona M , Balparda H , Montiel F , Montenegro M , Cabral L , Fedele J , Gumpel C , Depaoli C , Polillo D , Zarria L , Cigalini C , Dumont C 
Published: October 2024

Background

The ideal management of patients with intermediate-high risk (IHR) pulmonary embolism (PE) is still unknown. A multidisciplinary approach by Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) in combination with the advent of endovascular therapies sounds promising.

Purpose

Evaluate in-hospital events of elective endovascular reperfussion therapies in selected IHR PE patients after PERT assesment in a single center initial experience.

Methods

Analysis of consecutive patients with PE admitted from Jan/2017 to Jan/2024. The in-hospital evolution of an elective invasive strategy defined by an institutional PERT (since April/2021) in IHR PE patients was compared against the current standard of care (isolated anticoagulation and reperfusion only after hemodynamic collapse). Patients with limitations of therapeutic efforts due to comorbidities were excluded.

Results

361 patients with PE were treated with 76 (21.1%) stratified as IHR. After excluding 14 patients due to limitations of therapeutic efforts (78±9.4 years; 64.3% active cancer), 62 were included for analysis.

An elective endovascular treatment was performed in 20 (31.3%) patients; these were younger and with fewer comorbidities. However, they had more tachypnea, greater central distribution of thrombotic burden and signs of right ventricle overload assessed by flattening of the interventricular septum. Baseline characteristics, clinical presentation and management are described in table 1.

Within the invasive group, endovascular reperfusion was performed with local thrombolysis (70%), aspiration thrombectomy (15%) or their combination (15%). During hemodynamic evaluation, hidden shock was detected in 42.9% (6/14), with improvements in cardiac index observed after reperfusion therapy (n=8; 2.1 vs. 2.5). Improvement was also observed in pulmonary artery systolic pressure (n=14, 56.9 vs. 37.1mmHg; p&lt;0.001) and right ventricular function (n=15, TAPSE 16 vs. 22mm; p&lt;0.001).

Compared with the current standard of care, an elective invasive approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (6.5 vs. 9 days; p=0.02), less hemodynamic collapse (0% vs. 19.1%; p=0.04), need for mechanical ventilation (0% vs. 19.1%; p=0.04) and in-hospital mortality (0% vs. 21.4%; p=0.04) without differences in the incidence of major bleeding (Fig 1). After multivariate logistic regression analysis, the mortality benefit persisted in favor of an invasive strategy (p=0.014).

Conclusions

An "elective" invasive strategy in selected patients with IHR PE after PERT assessment was safe and resulted in less major in-hospital cardiovascular events in a single-center initial experience. Although these results should be taken with caution given the limitations of this study (single-center, small observational sample), they are in line with recent reports and are the focus of ongoing large randomized clinical trials.Table 1