Eight lessons from 2 years of use of the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status scale

Based on the literature and users’ experiences, lessons could be learned after 2 years’ use of the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale, that could contribute to its optimal use. All in all, the PCFS scale provided added value during the pandemic. https://bit.ly/3KkI5A

A model for estimating the health economic impact of earlier diagnosis of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

Background Diagnostic delay of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) exceeds 1 year, contributing to higher mortality. Health economic consequences of late CTEPH diagnosis are unknown. We aimed to develop a model for quantifying the impact of diagnosing CTEPH earlier on survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs. Material and methods A Markov model was developed to estimate lifelong outcomes, depending on the degree of delay. Data on survival and quality of life were obtained from published literature. Hospital costs were assessed from patient records (n=498) at the Amsterdam UMC - VUmc, which is a Dutch CTEPH referral center. Medication costs were based on a mix of standard medication regimens. Results For 63-year-old CTEPH patients with a 14-month diagnostic delay of CTEPH (median age and delay of patients in the European CTEPH Registry), lifelong healthcare costs were estimated at EUR 117 100 for a mix of treatment options. In a hypothetical scenario of maximal reduction of current delay, improved survival was estimated at a gain of 3.01 life-years and 2.04 QALYs. The associated cost increase was EUR 44 654, of which 87% was due to prolonged medication use. This accounts for an incremental cost-utility ratio of EUR 21 900/QALY. Conclusion Our constructed model based on the Dutch healthcare setting demonstrates a substantial health gain when CTEPH is diagnosed earlier. According to Dutch health economic standards, additional costs remain below the deemed acceptable limit of EUR 50 000/QALY for the particular disease burden. This model can be used for evaluating cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies aimed at reducing the diagnostic delay

The Post-Venous Thromboembolism Functional Status Scale: From Call to Action to Application in Research, Extension to COVID-19 Patients, and Its Use in Clinical Practice

A broad spectrum of long-term sequelae may be present in venous thromboembolism (VTE) survivors, affecting their quality of life and functioning. To monitor recovery and improve the prognosis of patients with persistent functional limitations, the development of a new outcome measure that could better capture the consequences of VTE was an unmet need. Starting as a call to action, the Post-VTE Functional Status (PVFS) scale was developed to meet this need. The PVFS scale is an easy-to-use clinical tool to measure and quantify functional outcomes after VTE by focusing on key aspects of daily life. As the scale was considered useful in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients as well, the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale was introduced early in the pandemic after slight adaptation. The scale has been well incorporated into both the VTE and COVID-19 research communities, contributing to the shift of focus toward patient-relevant functional outcomes. Psychometric properties have been evaluated, mainly for the PCFS scale but recently also for the PVFS scale, including validation studies of translations, showing adequate validity and reliability. In addition to serving as outcome measure in studies, guidelines and position papers recommend using the PVFS and PCFS scale in clinical practice. As broad use of the PVFS and PCFS scale in clinical practice is valuable to capture what matters most to patients, widespread implementation is a crucial next step. In this review, we discuss the development of the PVFS scale and introduction in VTE and COVID-19 care, the incorporation of the scale in research, and its application in clinical practice

The Post-COVID-19 Functional Status scale:a tool to measure functional status over time after COVID-19

An ordinal tool is proposed to measure the full spectrum of functional outcomes following COVID-19. This “Post-COVID-19 Functional Status (PCFS) scale” can be used for tracking functional status over time as well as for research purposes. https://bit.ly/3cofGa

Efficacy and safety of a 12-week outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation program in Post-PE Syndrome

BACKGROUND The Post-Pulmonary Embolism Syndrome (PPES) comprises heterogeneous entities, including chronic thromboembolic disease with/without pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH/CTEPD), and deconditioning. OBJECTIVES To assess underlying physiological determinants of PPES, and efficacy and safety of rehabilitation training in these patients. METHODS 56 consecutive PE patients with persistent dyspnea and/or functional limitations despite ≥3 months of anticoagulation underwent standardized diagnostic work-up including exercise testing as part of routine practice. All diagnostic (imaging and cardiopulmonary function) tests were interpreted by a core group of experienced clinicians. A subgroup of patients without CTEPH or other treatable conditions was referred for a 12-week personalized rehabilitation program, studying changes in physical condition and patient-reported outcome measures. RESULTS Persistent vascular occlusions were observed in 21/56 patients (38%) and CTEPH was confirmed in ten (18%). Regarding those without CTEPH, impaired cardiopulmonary responses were evident in 18/39 patients with available CPET data (46%), unrelated to chronic thrombi. Rehabilitation was completed by 27 patients after excluding 29 (patients with CTEPH or treatable comorbidities, refusal, ineligibility, or training elsewhere). Training intensity, PE-specific quality of life (PEmb-QoL) and fatigue (CIS) improved with a median difference of 20 W (p = 0.001), 3.9 points (p < 0.001) and 16 points (p = 0.003), respectively. Functional status (Post-VTE Functional Status Scale) improved ≥1 grade in 18 (67%) patients, and declined in one (3.7%). CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that abnormal cardiopulmonary responses to exercise are common in patients with PPES and are not limited to those with chronic thrombi. Offering pulmonary rehabilitation to patients not treated otherwise seems safe and promising

Erratum: Quality of initial anticoagulant treatment and risk of CTEPH after acute pulmonary embolism (PLoS ONE (2020) 15: 4 (e0232354) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232354)

The second author's initials and the seventh author's initials are indexed incorrectly in PubMed. The correct initials for the second author are: van Rein N. The correct initials for the seventh author are: van der Meer FJM. The second author's initials also appear incorrectly in the citation. The correct citation is: Boon GJAM, van Rein N, Bogaard HJ, Ende-Verhaar YM, Huisman MV, Kroft LJM, et al. (2020) Quality of initial anticoagulant treatment and risk of CTEPH after acute pulmonary embolism. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0232354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232354

Identification of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension on CTPAs performed for diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism depending on level of expertise

Background: Expert reading often reveals radiological signs of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) or chronic PE on computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) performed at the time of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) presentation preceding CTEPH. Little is known about the accuracy and reproducibility of CTPA reading by radiologists in training in this setting. Objectives: To evaluate 1) whether signs of CTEPH or chronic PE are routinely reported on CTPA for suspected PE; and 2) whether CTEPH-non-expert readers achieve comparable predictive accuracy to CTEPH-expert radiologists after dedicated instruction. Methods: Original reports of CTPAs demonstrating acute PE in 50 patients whom ultimately developed CTEPH, and those of 50 PE who did not, were screened for documented signs of CTEPH. All scans were re-assessed by three CTEPH-expert readers and two CTEPH-non-expert readers (blinded and independently) for predefined signs and overall presence of CTEPH. Results: Signs of chronic PE were mentioned in the original reports of 14/50 cases (28%), while CTEPH-expert radiologists had recognized 44/50 (88%). Using a standardized definition (≥3 predefined radiological signs), moderate-to-good agreement was reached between CTEPH-non-expert readers and the experts’ consensus (k-statistics 0.46; 0.61) at slightly lower sensitivities. The CTEPH-non-expert readers had moderate agreement on the presence of CTEPH (κ-statistic 0.38), but both correctly identified most cases (80% and 88%, respectively). Conclusions: Concomitant signs of CTEPH were poorly documented in daily practice, while most CTEPH patients were identified by CTEPH-non-expert readers after dedicated instruction. These findings underline the feasibility of achieving earlier CTEPH diagnosis by assessing CTPAs more attentively

Identification of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension on CTPAs performed for diagnosing acute pulmonary embolism depending on level of expertise

Background: Expert reading often reveals radiological signs of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) or chronic PE on computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) performed at the time of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) presentation preceding CTEPH. Little is known about the accuracy and reproducibility of CTPA reading by radiologists in training in this setting. Objectives: To evaluate 1) whether signs of CTEPH or chronic PE are routinely reported on CTPA for suspected PE; and 2) whether CTEPH-non-expert readers achieve comparable predictive accuracy to CTEPH-expert radiologists after dedicated instruction. Methods: Original reports of CTPAs demonstrating acute PE in 50 patients whom ultimately developed CTEPH, and those of 50 PE who did not, were screened for documented signs of CTEPH. All scans were re-assessed by three CTEPH-expert readers and two CTEPH-non-expert readers (blinded and independently) for predefined signs and overall presence of CTEPH. Results: Signs of chronic PE were mentioned in the original reports of 14/50 cases (28%), while CTEPH-expert radiologists had recognized 44/50 (88%). Using a standardized definition (≥3 predefined radiological signs), moderate-to-good agreement was reached between CTEPH-non-expert readers and the experts’ consensus (k-statistics 0.46; 0.61) at slightly lower sensitivities. The CTEPH-non-expert readers had moderate agreement on the presence of CTEPH (κ-statistic 0.38), but both correctly identified most cases (80% and 88%, respectively). Conclusions: Concomitant signs of CTEPH were poorly documented in daily practice, while most CTEPH patients were identified by CTEPH-non-expert readers after dedicated instruction. These findings underline the feasibility of achieving earlier CTEPH diagnosis by assessing CTPAs more attentively

Automated quantification of the pulmonary vasculature in pulmonary embolism and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

Abstract The shape and distribution of vascular lesions in pulmonary embolism (PE) and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) are different. We investigated whether automated quantification of pulmonary vascular morphology and densitometry in arteries and veins imaged by computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) could distinguish PE from CTEPH. We analyzed CTPA images from a cohort of 16 PE patients, 6 CTEPH patients, and 15 controls. Pulmonary vessels were extracted with a graph‐cut method, and separated into arteries and veins using deep‐learning classification. Vascular morphology was quantified by the slope (α) and intercept (β) of the vessel radii distribution. To quantify lung perfusion defects, the median pulmonary vascular density was calculated. By combining these measurements with densities measured in parenchymal areas, pulmonary trunk, and descending aorta, a static perfusion curve was constructed. All separate quantifications were compared between the three groups. No vascular morphology differences were detected in contrast to vascular density values. The median vascular density (interquartile range) was −567 (113), −452 (95), and −470 (323) HU, for the control, PE, and CTEPH group. The static perfusion curves showed different patterns between groups, with a statistically significant difference in aorta‐pulmonary trunk gradient between the PE and CTEPH groups (p = 0.008). In this proof of concept study, not vasculature morphology but densities differentiated between patients of three groups. Further technical improvements are needed to allow for accurate differentiation between PE and CTEPH, which in this study was only possible statistically by measuring the density gradient between aorta and pulmonary trunk