Hospital volume and outcomes for acute pulmonary embolism: Multinational population based cohort study

[Objectives] To evaluate the association between experience in the management of acute pulmonary embolism, reflected by hospital case volume, and mortality.[Design] Multinational population based cohort study using data from the Registro Informatizado de la Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) registry between 1 January 2001 and 31 August 2018.[Setting] 353 hospitals in 16 countries.[Participants] 39 257 consecutive patients with confirmed diagnosis of acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism.[Main] outcome measure Pulmonary embolism related mortality within 30 days after diagnosis of the condition.[Results] Patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism admitted to high volume hospitals (>40 pulmonary embolisms per year) had a higher burden of comorbidities. A significant inverse association was seen between annual hospital volume and pulmonary embolism related mortality. Admission to hospitals in the highest quarter (that is, >40 pulmonary embolisms per year) was associated with a 44% reduction in the adjusted odds of pulmonary embolism related mortality at 30 days compared with admission to hospitals in the lowest quarter (<15 pulmonary embolisms per year; adjusted risk 1.3% v 2.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.95); P=0.03). Results were consistent in all sensitivity analyses. All cause mortality at 30 days was not significantly reduced between the two quarters (adjusted odds ratio 0.78 (0.50 to 1.22); P=0.28). Survivors showed little change in the odds of recurrent venous thromboembolism (odds ratio 0.76 (0.49 to 1.19)) or major bleeding (1.07 (0.77 to 1.47)) between the low and high volume hospitals.[Conclusions] In patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism, admission to high volume hospitals was associated with significant reductions in adjusted pulmonary embolism related mortality at 30 days. These findings could have implications for management strategies.Peer reviewe

PICO Questions and DELPHI Methodology for the Management of Venous Thromboembolism Associated with COVID-19

COVID-19; Anticoagulació; Malaltia tromboembòlica venosaCOVID-19; Anticoagulación; Enfermedad tromboembólica venosaCOVID-19; Anticoagulation; Venous thromboembolic diseasePatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have a higher risk of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) than patients with other infectious or inflammatory diseases, both as macrothrombosis (pulmonar embolism and deep vein thrombosis) or microthrombosis. However, the use of anticoagulation in this scenario remains controversial. This is a project that used DELPHI methodology to answer PICO questions related to anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. The objective was to reach a consensus among multidisciplinary VTE experts providing answers to those PICO questions. Seven PICO questions regarding patients with COVID-19 responded with a broad consensus: 1. It is recommended to avoid pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in most COVID-19 patients not requiring hospital admission; 2. In most hospitalized patients for COVID-19 who are receiving oral anticoagulants before admission, it is recommended to replace them by low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) at therapeutic doses; 3. Thromboprophylaxis with LMWH at standard doses is suggested for COVID-19 patients admitted to a conventional hospital ward; 4. Standard-doses thromboprophylaxis with LMWH is recommended for COVID-19 patients requiring admission to Intensive Care Unit; 5. It is recommended not to determine D-Dimer levels routinely in COVID-19 hospitalized patients to select those in whom VTE should be suspected, or as a part of the diagnostic algorithm to rule out or confirm a VTE event; 6. It is recommended to discontinue pharmacological thromboprophylaxis at discharge in most patients hospitalized for COVID-19; 7. It is recommended to withdraw anticoagulant treatment after 3 months in most patients with a VTE event associated with COVID-19. The combination of PICO questions and DELPHI methodology provides a consensus on different recommendations for anticoagulation management in patients with COVID-19.This work was carried out with the institutional support and unconditional financial assistance of Sanofi, which had no role in the design, interpretation, or writing of the manuscript

Role of a clinical prediction score in a chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension rule-out strategy

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Case-Control Analysis of the Impact of Anemia on Quality of Life in Patients with Cancer: A Qca Study Analysis

Anemia is a common condition in cancer patients and is associated with a wide variety of symptoms that impair quality of life (QoL). However, exactly how anemia affects QoL in cancer patients is unclear because of the inconsistencies in its definition in previous reports. We aimed to examine the clinical impact of anemia on the QoL of cancer patients using specific questionnaires. We performed a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective, case-control study. We included patients with cancer with (cases) or without (controls) anemia. Participants completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life questionnaire version 3.0 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Euro QoL 5-dimension 3-level (EQ–5D–3L) questionnaire. Statistically significant and clinically relevant differences in the global health status were examined. From 2015 to 2018, 365 patients were included (90 cases and 275 controls). We found minimally important differences in global health status according to the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire (case vs. controls: 45.6 vs. 58%, respectively; mean difference: −12.4, p < 0.001). Regarding symptoms, cancer patients with anemia had more pronounced symptoms in six out of nine scales in comparison with those without anemia. In conclusion, cancer patients with anemia had a worse QoL both clinically and statistically

Uso de pulsos de metilprednisolona de repetición en adultos hospitalizados por neumonía y síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo por COVID-19: un estudio preliminar de tipo antes-después (estudio CortiCOVID)

Introduction The use of systemic corticosteroids in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid pulses in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods A quasi-experimental study, before and after, was performed in a tertiary referral hospital, including admitted patients showing COVID-19-associated pneumonia. The standard treatment protocol included targeted COVID-19 antiviral therapy from 23rd March 2020, and additionally pulses of methylprednisolone from 30th March 2020. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint combining oro-tracheal intubation (OTI) and death within 7 days. Results A total of 24 patients were included. Standard of care (SOC) (before intervention) was prescribed in 14 patients, while 10 received SOC plus pulses of methylprednisolone (after intervention). The median age of patients was 64.5 years and 83.3% of the patients were men. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 13 patients (92.9%) who received SOC vs. 2 patients (20%) that received pulses of methylprednisolone (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.001 to 0.25; p = 0.019). Length of hospitalization in survivors was shorter in the corticosteroids group (median, 14.5 [8.5–21.8] days vs. 29 [23–31] days, p = 0.003). There were no differences in the development of infections between both groups. There were 3 deaths, none of them in the corticosteroids group. Conclusions In patients with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19, the administration of methylprednisolone pulses was associated with a lower rate of OTI and/or death and a shorter hospitalization episode.Introducción El uso de corticosteroides sistémicos en pacientes gravemente enfermos por enfermedad coronavírica de 2019 (covid-19) es controvertido. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad de los pulsos de corticoesteroides en los pacientes con neumonía por covid-19. Métodos Se realizó un ensayo cuasiexperimental, tipo antes y después, en un hospital terciario de referencia que incluyó a pacientes ingresados por neumonía asociada a covid-19. El protocolo de tratamiento estándar incluía un tratamiento antiviral dirigido contra el virus de la covid-19 desde el 23 de marzo de 2020 y añadió pulsos de metilprednisolona desde el 30 de marzo de 2020. El resultado primario fue un criterio combinado compuesto por la intubación orotraqueal y el fallecimiento durante los siguientes siete días. Resultados Se incluyó un total de 24 pacientes. El protocolo de tratamiento (antes de la intervención) se prescribió en 14 pacientes, mientras que 10 recibieron el protocolo de tratamiento además de los pulsos de metilprednisolona (después de la intervención). La edad media de los pacientes fue de 64,5 años y el 83,3% de los pacientes eran hombres. El resultado combinado primario tuvo lugar en 13 pacientes (92,9%) que recibieron el protocolo de tratamiento frente a 2 pacientes (20%) que recibieron los pulsos de metilprednisolona (odds ratio = 0,02; intervalo de confianza del 95% = 0,001-0,25; p = 0,019). La duración de la hospitalización en los supervivientes fue más corta en el grupo que recibió corticoesteroides (media = 14,5 [8,5-21,8] días frente a 29 [23-31] días, p = 0,003). No hubo diferencias en el desarrollo de infecciones entre ambos grupos. Hubo tres fallecimientos, ninguno de ellos en el grupo que recibió corticoesteroides. Conclusiones En los pacientes con neumonía grave por covid-19, la administración de pulsos de metilprednisolona se asoció a unas tasas menores de intubación orotraqueal y/o muerte y a episodios de hospitalización más cortos

ERS International Congress 2021: highlights from the Pulmonary Vascular Diseases Assembly

This article aims to summarise the latest research presented at the virtual 2021 European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress in the field of pulmonary vascular disease. In light of the current guidelines and proceedings, knowledge gaps are addressed and the newest findings of the various forms of pulmonary hypertension as well as key points on pulmonary embolism are discussed.Despite the comprehensive coverage of the guidelines for pulmonary embolism at previous conferences, discussions about controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of this condition in specific cases were debated and are addressed in the first section of this article.We then report on an interesting pro–con debate about the current classification of pulmonary hypertension.We further report on presentations on Group 3 pulmonary hypertension, with research exploring pathogenesis, phenotyping, diagnosis and treatment; important contributions on the diagnosis of post-capillary pulmonary hypertension are also included.Finally, we summarise the latest evidence presented on pulmonary vascular disease and COVID-19 and a statement on the new imaging guidelines for pulmonary vascular disease from the Fleischner Society

The rationale, design, and methods of a randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an active strategy for the diagnosis and treatment of acute pulmonary embolism during exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Introduction: Some previous studies have suggested a high prevalence of pulmonary embolism (PE) during exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (ECOPD). The SLICE trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of an active strategy for the diagnosis and treatment of PE (vs usual care) in patients hospitalized because of ECOPD. Methods: SLICE is a phase III, prospective, international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, and parallel-group trial. A total of 746 patients hospitalized because of ECOPD will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either an active strategy for the diagnosis and anticoagulant treatment of PE or usual care (ie, standard care without any diagnostic test for diagnosing PE). The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal (recurrent) venous thromboembolism (VTE), or readmission for ECOPD within 90 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes are (a) death from any cause within 90 days after enrollment, (b) non-fatal (recurrent) VTE within 90 days after enrollment, (c) readmission within 90 days after enrollment, and (d) length of hospital stay. Results: Enrollment started in September 2014 and is expected to proceed until 2020. Median age of the first 443 patients was 71 years (interquartile range, 64-78), and 26% were female. Conclusions: This multicenter trial will determine the value of detecting PEs in patients with ECOPD. This has implications for COPD patient morbidity and mortality