Effect of pulmonary embolism response team on advanced therapies administered: The University of Michigan experience

Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) were employed at multiple institutions to bridge the gap between varied treatment options for acute PE and unclear evidence for optimal management. There is limited data regarding the impact of PERT on the use of advanced therapies and clinical outcomes. We p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Thrombosis research 2023-01, Vol.221, p.73-78
Main Authors: Ardeshna, Nelish S., Song, Melinda, Hyder, Syed N., Grace, Kelsey A., O'Hare, Connor, Schaeffer, William J., Stover, Michael, Greineder, Colin F., Barnes, Geoffrey D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anticoagulation
Catheter-directed therapies
Cohort Studies
Humans
Multidisciplinary team
Patient Care Team
Pulmonary embolism
Pulmonary Embolism - drug therapy
Pulmonary Embolism Response Team
Retrospective Studies
Thrombolytic Therapy
Tissue plasminogen activator
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) were employed at multiple institutions to bridge the gap between varied treatment options for acute PE and unclear evidence for optimal management. There is limited data regarding the impact of PERT on the use of advanced therapies and clinical outcomes. We performed a retrospective single-center cohort study comparing patients that presented to the ED with an acute PE before and after the creation of PERT in June 2017 at our institution. We assessed utilization of advanced therapies, LOS, and mortality. A total of 817 patients (168 pre-PERT, 649 post-PERT) were evaluated in the ED with an acute PE between October 2016 and December 2019. Both groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and PESI score. There was a decrease in advanced therapy use (16 % vs. 7.5 %, p = 0.006) after PERT creation. Most notable decreases were in catheter-based therapies (8.5 % vs. 2.2 %, p = 0.008) and IVC filter placement (5.3 % vs. 3.2 %, p 
ISSN:0049-3848
1879-2472
DOI:10.1016/j.thromres.2022.11.017