Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) approach: initial experience from the Cleveland Clinic

Abstract

Management of intermediate and high risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is challenging. The role of multidisciplinary teams for the care of these patients is emerging. Herein, we report our experience with a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT). We conducted a retrospective chart review on all patients admitted to the Cleveland Clinic main campus who required activation of the (PERT) from October 1, 2014 to September 1, 2016. We extracted data pertaining to clinical presentation, bleeding complications, and pre- and post-discharge imaging. Patients were classified as low, intermediate or high risk PE. Descriptive and continuous variables were collected and analyzed. There were 134 PERT activations. PE was confirmed by CT-PA in 118 patients. Fifteen (13%) patients were classified as low risk, 80 (68%) intermediate risk PE and 23 (19%) high risk PE. Fourteen (12%) patients were treated with catheter directed rtPA, 6 (5%) received full dose (100 mg rtPA), 16 (13%) received systemic half-dose (50 mg rtPA), 6 (5%) underwent a surgical embolectomy and 4 (3%) underwent mechanical thrombectomy. 65 (55%) patients received anticoagulation only, and 8 (7%) patients were managed conservatively without any anticoagulation or advanced therapy. 11 (9%) patients died while during the hospitalization. Fourteen patients had major bleeding events. There were no bleeding events among patients who received systemic low dose or full dose rtPA. A multidisciplinary approach to cases of intermediate risk and high risk PE can be implemented successfully. We saw a relatively low rate of bleeding events with use of rtPA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Wiener RS, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2011) Time trends in pulmonary embolism in the United States: evidence of overdiagnosis. Arch Intern Med 09(9):831–837 171(

  2. 2.

    Fanikos J, Rao A, Seger AC, Carter D, Piazza G, Goldhaber SZ (2013) Hospital costs of acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Med 126(2):127–132

  3. 3.

    Jaff MR, McMurtry MS, Archer SL, Cushman M, Goldenberg N, Goldhaber SZ et al (2011) Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 26(16):1788–1830

  4. 4.

    Kucher N, Boekstegers P, Muller OJ, Kupatt C, Beyer-Westendorf J, Heitzer T et al (2014) Randomized, controlled trial of ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Circulation 129(4):479–486

  5. 5.

    Sharifi M, Bay C, Skrocki L, Rahimi F, Mehdipour M (2013) Moderate pulmonary embolism treated with thrombolysis (from the “MOPETT” Trial). Am J Cardiol 15(2):273–277 111(

  6. 6.

    Barnes GD, Kabrhel C, Courtney DM, Naydenov S, Wood T, Rosovsky R et al (2016) Diversity in the pulmonary embolism response team model: an organizational survey of the National PERT Consortium Members. Chest 150(6):1414–1417

  7. 7.

    Schulman S, Kearon C (2005) Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 3(4):692–694

  8. 8.

    Alviar CL, Heresi GA (2016) Thrombolysis in submassive pulmonary embolism: Finding the balance. Cleve Clin J Med 83(12):933–936

  9. 9.

    Serhal M, Haddadin IS, Heresi GA, Hornacek DA, Shishehbor MH, Bartholomew JR (2017) Pulmonary embolism response teams. J Thromb Thrombolysis 44(1):19–29

  10. 10.

    Kabrhel C, Rosovsky R, Channick R, Jaff MR, Weinberg I, Sundt T et al (2016) A multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response team: initial 30-month experience with a novel approach to delivery of care to patients with submassive and massive pulmonary embolism. Chest 150(2):384–393

  11. 11.

    Barnes G, Giri J, Courtney DM, Naydenov S, Wood T, Rosovsky R et al (1995) Nuts and bolts of running a pulmonary embolism response team: results from an organizational survey of the National PERT Consortium members. Hosp Pract 45:76–80

  12. 12.

    Aujesky D, Roy PM, Verschuren F, Righini M, Osterwalder J, Egloff M et al (2011) Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 378(9785):41–48

  13. 13.

    Curtis GM, Lam SW, Reddy AJ, Bauer SR (2014) Risk factors associated with bleeding after alteplase administration for pulmonary embolism: a case-control study. Pharmacotherapy 34(8):818–825

  14. 14.

    Poterucha TJ, Bergmark B, Aranki S, Kaneko T, Piazza G (2015) Surgical Pulmonary embolectomy. Circulation 132(12):1146–1151

Download references

Author information

JM and GH had full access to the data and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and content of the manuscript. JM, IH, DS, AG, NE, DH, NFM,MG, DJ, MS, ST, SB, MM, MS, JB, and GH contributed substantially to the study design, interpretation of results and writing of this manuscript.

Correspondence to Gustavo A. Heresi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahar, J.H., Haddadin, I., Sadana, D. et al. A pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) approach: initial experience from the Cleveland Clinic. J Thromb Thrombolysis 46, 186–192 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11239-018-1686-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pulmonary embolism
  • PERT
  • Thrombolysis
  • Anticoagulation