To the Editor
Patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) have conventionally been hospitalized for initial management and initiation of anticoagulants(1). A recent clinical trial found that PE patients who were considered low risk by the PE severity index (2) could be safely managed as outpatients(3). However it is unclear how often outpatient PE management occurs in real-world settings or whether outcomes are as favorable as in the clinical trial. Our study describes short-term rates of death and hospital admission of patients with acute PE who were discharged from emergency department (ED) settings.
Methods
We obtained data from the Cardiovascular Research Network Venous Thromboembolism (CVRN VTE) Study, a collaboration of four integrated healthcare delivery systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, and Geisinger Health System) and identified all adults (age ≥ 21 years) with a primary International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (415.1x) during an ED visit from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2010. We restricted the analysis to patients who were discharged from EDs with an anticoagulant prescription within 7 days. Exclusion criteria were <12 months continuous pharmacy benefits, prior venous thromboembolism diagnoses, or outpatient anticoagulant prescriptions within 4 years. Anticoagulants included warfarin, low-molecular-weight heparins, and fondaparinux (as target specific oral anticoagulants were not yet approved for use in PE). Data on patient demographics, medication use, and ICD-9 diagnoses were obtained from electronic databases. Primary outcomes for this analysis included hospital admission within 30 days and death within 90 days of the index ED encounter. We used descriptive statistics to report outcome rates. This study was approved by institutional review boards of participating sites and waiver of informed consent was obtained due to the nature of the study.
Results
Of 5927 patients with a primary diagnosis of PE, 494 (8.3%) were discharged from ED settings. The proportion of ED-discharged PE patients increased over time, from 37/657 (5.6%) in 2004 to 110/994 (11.1%) in 2010 (P value for trend <0.001). Characteristics of ED-discharged patients are presented in Table 1. Within 30 days of ED-discharge, 92 of the 494 PE patients (18.6%) had another ED visit and 39 (7.9%) were hospitalized. Eleven patients (2.2%) had a primary diagnosis of hemorrhage during a subsequent ED or hospital visit within 30 days. Mortality was low - none died within 7 days and 2 (0.4%) within 90 days.
Table 1.
Clinical characteristic | N=494 |
---|---|
Age, median years [interquartile range] | 61.5 [48.0–73.0] |
Female, n (%) | 243 (49.2) |
Race, n (%) | |
White/European | 365 (73.9) |
Black/African-American | 33 (6.7) |
Asian/Pacific Islander | 16 (3.2) |
Other/Unknown | 80 (16.2) |
Year of diagnosis, n (%) | |
2004 | 37 (7.5) |
2005 | 35 (7.1) |
2006 | 50 (10.1) |
2007 | 77 (15.6) |
2008 | 90 (18.2) |
2009 | 95 (19.2) |
2010 | 110 (22.3) |
Diagnosed medical conditions, n (%) | |
Prior ischemic stroke | 6 (1.2) |
Ischemic heart disease | 14 (2.8) |
Chronic lung disease | 55 (11.1) |
Heart failure | 21 (4.3) |
Hypertension | 218 (44.1) |
Sepsis in hospital | 3 (0.6) |
Diabetes mellitus | 61 (12.3) |
Malignant neoplasm | 131 (26.5) |
Concomitant deep venous thrombosis | 252 (51.0) |
Hospitalization within 30 days prior to event | 50 (10.1) |
PE severity index(3) risk class (modified)* | |
Class II or higher (≥66 points) | 294 (59.5) |
Class III or higher (≥86 points) | 116 (23.4) |
Class IV or higher (≥106 points) | 17 (3.4) |
Charlson comorbidity index(4) mean (SD) | 1.5 (2.3) |
Baseline medication use, n (%) | |
ACE inhibitor | 86 (17.4) |
Angiotensin II receptor blocker | 16 (3.2) |
Beta blocker | 114 (23.1) |
Calcium channel blocker | 54 (10.9) |
Diuretic | 118 (23.9) |
Aldosterone receptor antagonist | 5 (1.0) |
Alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist | 29 (5.9) |
Statin | 106 (21.5) |
Other lipid-lowering agent | 7 (1.4) |
Non-aspirin antiplatelet agent | 14 (2.8) |
Diabetic therapy | 45 (9.1) |
Modified PE severity index score was calculated using age, sex, and clinical diagnoses alone (e.g., without physiologic data) and equaled +1 (for each year of age) + 10 (if male) +30 (if malignant neoplasm) +10 (if heart failure) + 10 (if chronic lung disease). The actual proportion of patients in each risk class likely higher if physiologic data were incorporated.
Discussion
Patients with acute PE discharged from ED settings in four geographically diverse healthcare delivery systems had mortality rates comparable to outcomes observed in a clinical trial examining outpatient management of PE(3). Although still representing a relative minority of PE patients, the proportion of ED-discharges nearly doubled over the 7-year study period. Shifting appropriate patients to outpatient management may have benefits in terms of improved quality of life, enhanced physical and social functioning, and reduced costs of medical care(5). We note that at least 23% of the patients in our study would not have been eligible for outpatient management in the clinical trial due to having a higher PE severity index risk class(3).
Limitations to our study include identification of PEs using ICD-9 codes and pharmacy data alone, the lack of detailed physiologic data required to calculate a full PE severity risk class, and the inability to determine specific reasons for patient disposition plans.
Conclusion
Our study confirms that selected patients with PE can be managed as outpatients with favorable short-term outcomes.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (Grant #R01HL103820). The sponsor was not involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Dr. Fang had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
We would like to acknowledge Dr. John R. Schmelzer for his contributions to this paper, which include initial conception/design, acquisition and interpretation of the data, and providing critical revisions to the final manuscript.
Footnotes
Disclosures
MC Fang - none
D Fan - none
S Sung - none
DM Witt - none
SR Steinhubl - none
SH Yale - none
AS Go – research grant from CSL Behring
References
- 1.Vinson DR, Zehtabchi S, Yealy DM. Can selected patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary embolism be safely treated without hospitalization? A systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2012 Nov;60(5):651–662. e654. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.05.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Aujesky D, Obrosky DS, Stone RA, et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jan 23;166(2):169–175. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.2.169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Aujesky D, Roy PM, Verschuren F, et al. Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2011 Jul 2;378(9785):41–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60824-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Nov;47(11):1245–1251. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90129-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mahan CE, Borrego ME, Woersching AL, et al. Venous thromboembolism: annualised United States models for total, hospital-acquired and preventable costs utilising long-term attack rates. Thromb Haemost. 2012 Aug;108(2):291–302. doi: 10.1160/TH12-03-0162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]