Does the use of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) alter treatment choices and improve outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Implementation of PERTs for acute pulmonary embolism is associated with increased use of advanced therapies and decreased IVC filter utilization without increasing bleeding complications, despite a higher proportion of severe PE patients.
BACKGROUND: The impact of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) on treatment choice and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is still uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of PERTs in the management and outcomes of patients with PE. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, WorldWideScience and MedRxiv were searched for original articles reporting PERT patient outcomes from 2009. Data were analysed using a random effects model. RESULTS: 16 studies comprising 3827 PERT patients and 3967 controls met inclusion criteria. The PERT group had more patients with intermediate and high-risk PE (66.2%) compared to the control group (48.5%). Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of catheter-directed interventions, systemic thrombolysis and surgical embolectomy (odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-2.53; p<0.01), similar bleeding complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88-1.37) and decreased utilisation of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88; p<0.01) in the PERT group. Furthermore, there was a nonsignificant trend towards decreased mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07; p=0.19) with PERTs. CONCLUSIONS: The PERT group showed an increased use of advanced therapies and a decreased utilisation of IVC filters. This was not associated with increased bleeding. Despite comprising more severe PE patients, there was a trend towards lower mortality in the PERT group.
Sosa et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: