Why the study?
Delaying surgical pulmonary embolectomy until other interventions fail risks critical illness and irreversible end-organ dysfunction, highlighting the need to understand PE management and RV failure pathophysiology.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Review
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports PERT integration and RV-focused care in acute PE; leaves open optimal strategies pending prospective validation.
The desire for surgical intervention for pulmonary embolism (PE) precipitated the development of cardiopulmonary bypass, and therefore a new era in history of cardiac surgery, cardiology, and medicine. However, the advent of systemic thrombolysis and catheter-directed therapy have decreased interest in surgical management of PE. Surgical pulmonary embolectomy is limited to patients in critical condition with high mortality after other interventions have failed. The issue with clinicians delaying surgical pulmonary embolectomy is that in the interim patients may become critically ill with irreversible end organ dysfunction. Management necessitates decompression of RV afterload by relieving PE obstruction to improve RV function and left ventricular filling. Understanding the pathophysiology of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) obstruction and RV failure with a multidisciplinary heart team is paramount.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mdanat et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: