Cited by 85Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications

The implementation of a pulmonary embolism response team in the management of intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism

Open access
Xenos, Eleftherios S., Davis, George A., He, Qiang, Green, Amanda, Smyth, Susan S.·2019·Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders

Abstract

Background Massive and submassive pulmonary embolism (PE) can be life-threatening. Treatment options include anticoagulation, fibrinolysis, catheter-directed or open surgical thrombus removal, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. With increasing patient complexity and advanced therapeutic options, the approach to optimal care for patients with intermediate- to high-risk PE is not clearly established. Multidisciplinary, rapid response teams can optimize risk stratification and expedite management. A PE response team (PERT) composed of specialists from cardiology, vascular surgery, emergency medicine, pulmonary and critical care, interventional radiology, cardiac surgery, hospital medicine, and pharmacy was created at our institution. The team is tasked with evaluating and treating patients with massive and submassive PE by use of a risk stratification and treatment algorithm. We describe our initial experience with this approach.Methods The records of patients treated by the PERT since inception in October 2015 through May 2017 were reviewed (intervention group). The diagnoses codes of the PERT patients were retrieved from the Vizient database. A retrospective control cohort group was created using these specific diagnoses and a matching set of demographics (age, sex), Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group, admission severity of illness, and admission risk of mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test, the Pearson χ 2 statistic, Student t-test, and Cochran-Cox approximation. P < .05 was considered significant.Results During the time interval, 77 patients with massive or submassive PE were treated by PERT activation; 992 patients included in the control group were treated at the discretion of an attending physician without use of the algorithm from October 2013 to 2016. Both groups had similar demographics, similar distribution of risk of mortality and severity of illness, and similar average Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group weighting. There was no statistically significant difference in the mortality rate between the two groups. The PERT group had significantly lower intensive care unit stay and overall length of stay. No difference was seen in direct cost between the two groups despite higher use of interventional treatment modalities in the PERT group.Conclusions In our institution, assembly of a dedicated team to treat patients with massive or submassive PE according to a clinical algorithm resulted in expedited treatment and reduced variation of care. Intensive care unit stay and overall length of stay were reduced by this approach, with no impact on direct cost despite the use of advanced modalities of treatment. We believe that this paradigm can be of potential value in other disease entities, particularly when multiple disciplines are involved.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvsv.2018.11.014

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xenos, E. S., Davis, G. A., He, Q., Green, A., & Smyth, S. S.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky HealthCare (US)
Corresponding author
Xenos, Eleftherios S.
Venue
Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
493-500
ISSN
2213-333X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2929604573
Cited by
85
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 5
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Vascular Surgery Venous and Lymphatic Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Acute Ischemic Stroke Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Keywords
pulmonary embolism response team, massive pulmonary embolism, submassive pulmonary embolism, risk stratification, treatment algorithm, ICU length of stay, length of hospital stay, mortality, direct costs, fibrinolysis, anticoagulation, thrombus removal, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Care Team, Pulmonary Embolism, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Severity of Illness Index, Time Factors, Program Evaluation, Databases, Factual, Treatment Outcome, Hospital Costs, Risk Assessment, Critical Pathways

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review