Pulmonary embolism in the emergency department : a Singaporean nursing case review

Introduction The presentation of pulmonary embolism to the emergency department (ED) can prove challenging because of the myriad of potential disease processes that mimic its signs and symptoms. The incidence of pulmonary embolism and indeed the mortality associated with it is relatively high. Early diagnosis and treatment is crucial in off-setting the potential deleterious effects associated with this condition. The aim of this article is to present a nursing case review of a patient presenting to the ED with a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Method We chose to use a case review to highlight the nursing and medical care that was provided for a patient who presented to the emergency department acutely with dyspnoea, chest pain and pyrexia. The use of case reviews are useful in reporting unusual or rare cases and this format is typically seen more in medicine than in nursing. They can naturally take one of two formats—a single case report or a series of case reports; in this case we opted to report on a single case. Discussion The gentleman in question was an ambulance admissionto the ED with a three day history of chest pain, shortness of breath and one episode of syncope which brought him to the ED. Over the course of his admission a variety of treatment modalities were used successfully to alleviate the problem. More notable from a nursing perspective was the use of diagnostic tools as an interpretation to guide his care and provide a platform from which a deeper understanding and appreciation of the intricacies the critically ill patient often presents. Conclusion We found the use of case review very enlightening in understanding the disease process and the decision-making that accompanies this. Whilst our patient was successfully rehabilitated home, we learnt a lot from the experience which has been most beneficial in supporting our understanding of pulmonary embolism.

Aortic and Tricuspid Endocarditis in Hemodialysis Patient with Systemic and Pulmonary Embolism

This is a case report of a 43-year-old Caucasian male with end-stage renal disease being treated with hemodialysis and infective endocarditis in the aortic and tricuspid valves. The clinical presentation was dominated by neurologic impairment with cerebral embolism and hemorrhagic components. A thoracoabdominal computerized tomography scan revealed septic pulmonary embolus. The patient underwent empirical antibiotherapy with ceftriaxone, gentamicin and vancomycin, and the therapy was changed to flucloxacilin and gentamicin after the isolation of S. aureus in blood cultures. The multidisciplinary team determined that the patient should undergo valve replacement after the stabilization of the intracranial hemorrhage; however, on the 8th day of hospitalization, the patient entered cardiac arrest due to a massive septic pulmonary embolism and died. Despite the risk of aggravation of the hemorrhagic cerebral lesion, early surgical intervention should be considered in high-risk patients.

Diagnosing pulmonary embolism in outpatients with clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, venous ultrasound, and helical computed tomography: a multicenter management study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a diagnostic strategy for pulmonary embolism that combined clinical assessment, plasma D-dimer measurement, lower limb venous ultrasonography, and helical computed tomography (CT). METHODS: A cohort of 965 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency departments of three general and teaching hospitals with clinically suspected pulmonary embolism underwent sequential noninvasive testing. Clinical probability was assessed by a prediction rule combined with implicit judgment. All patients were followed for 3 months. RESULTS: A normal D-dimer level (<500 microg/L by a rapid enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) ruled out venous thromboembolism in 280 patients (29%), and finding a deep vein thrombosis by ultrasonography established the diagnosis in 92 patients (9.5%). Helical CT was required in only 593 patients (61%) and showed pulmonary embolism in 124 patients (12.8%). Pulmonary embolism was considered ruled out in the 450 patients (46.6%) with a negative ultrasound and CT scan and a low-to-intermediate clinical probability. The 8 patients with a negative ultrasound and CT scan despite a high clinical probability proceeded to pulmonary angiography (positive: 2; negative: 6). Helical CT was inconclusive in 11 patients (pulmonary embolism: 4; no pulmonary embolism: 7). The overall prevalence of pulmonary embolism was 23%. Patients classified as not having pulmonary embolism were not anticoagulated during follow-up and had a 3-month thromboembolic risk of 1.0% (95% confidence interval: 0.5% to 2.1%). CONCLUSION: A noninvasive diagnostic strategy combining clinical assessment, D-dimer measurement, ultrasonography, and helical CT yielded a diagnosis in 99% of outpatients suspected of pulmonary embolism, and appeared to be safe, provided that CT was combined with ultrasonography to rule out the disease.

Diagnostic d'embolie pulmonaire: problématique résiduelle des D-dimères faussement positifs [The unresolved issue of false-positive D-dimer results in the diagnostic workup of pulmonary embolism].

The unresolved issue of false-positive D-dimer results in the diagnostic workup of pulmonary embolism Pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a difficult diagnosis as it lacks specific symptoms and clinical signs. After the determination of the pretest PE probability by a validated clinical score, D-dimers (DD) is the initial blood test in the majority of patients whose probability is low or intermediate. The low specificity of DD results in a high number of false-positives that then require thoracic angio-CT. A new clinical decision rule, called the Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out criteria (PERC), identifies patients at such low risk that PE can be safely ruled-out without a DD test. Its safety has been confirmed in US emergency departments, but retrospective European studies showed that it would lead to 5-7% of undiagnosed PE. Alternative strategies are needed to reduce the proportion of false-positive DD results.

Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is traditionally treated in hospital. Growing evidence from non randomized prospective studies suggests that a substantial proportion of patients with non-massive PE might be safely treated in the outpatient setting using low molecular weight heparins. Based on this evidence, professional societies started to recommend outpatient care for selected patients with non-massive PE. Despite these recommendations, outpatient treatment of non-massive PE appears to be uncommon in clinical practice. The major barriers to PE outpatient care are, firstly, the uncertainty as how to identify low risk patients with PE who are candidates for outpatient care and secondly the lack of high quality evidence from randomized trials demonstrating the safety of PE outpatient care compared to traditional inpatient management. Also, although clinical prognostic models, echocardiography and cardiac biomarkers accurately identify low risk patients with PE in prospective studies, the benefit of risk stratification strategies based on these instruments should be demonstrated in prospective management studies and clinical trials before they can be implemented as decision aids to guide PE outpatient treatment. Before high quality evidence documenting the safety of an outpatient treatment approach is published, outpatient management of non-massive PE cannot be generally recommended.

Therapy of acute massive pulmonary embolism associated with Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome.

Acute massive pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening event. Before the era of cardiopulmonary bypass, acute pulmonary embolectomy had been historically attempted in patients with severe hemodynamic compromise. The Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (KTS) represents a significant life-long risk for major thromboembolic events. We present two young patients with Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome who survived surgical embolectomy after massive PE and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, with good postoperative recovery. Even though the role of surgical embolectomy in massive PE is not clearly defined, with current technology it can be life saving and can lead to a complete recovery, especially in young patients as described in this study.

Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality after acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) requires medical expertise, diagnostic testing, and therapies that may not be available consistently throughout the entire week. We sought to assess whether associations exist between weekday or weekend admission and mortality and length of hospital stay for patients hospitalized with PE. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated patients discharged with a primary diagnosis of PE from 186 acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania (January 2000 to November 2002). We used random-effect logistic models to study the association between weekend admission and 30-day mortality and used discrete survival models to study the association between weekend admission and time to hospital discharge, adjusting for hospital (region, size, and teaching status) and patient factors (race, insurance, severity of illness, and use of thrombolytic therapy). Among 15 531 patient discharges with PE, 3286 patients (21.2%) had been admitted on a weekend. Patients admitted on weekends had a higher unadjusted 30-day mortality rate (11.1% versus 8.8%) than patients admitted on weekdays, with no difference in length of stay. Patients admitted on weekends had significantly greater adjusted odds of dying (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.34) than patients admitted on weekdays. The higher mortality among patients hospitalized on weekends was driven by the increased mortality rate among the most severely ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PE who are admitted on weekends have a significantly higher short-term mortality than patients admitted on weekdays. Quality-improvement efforts should aim to ensure a consistent approach to the management of PE 7 days a week.

Prospective comparison of clinical prognostic scores in elderly patients with pulmonary embolism.

Background: The Geneva Prognostic Score (GPS), the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), and its simplified version (sPESI) are well known clinical prognostic scores for pulmonary embolism (PE).Objectives: To compare the prognostic performance of these scores in elderly patients with PE. Patients/Methods: In a multicenter Swiss cohort of elderly patients with venous thromboembolism, we prospectively studied 449 patients aged ≥65 years with symptomatic PE. The outcome was 30-day overall mortality. We dichotomized patients as low- vs. higher-risk in all three scores using the following thresholds: GPS scores ≤2 vs. >2, PESI risk classes I-II vs. III-V, and sPESI scores 0 vs. ≥1. We compared 30-day mortality in low- vs. higher-risk patients and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results: Overall, 3.8% of patients (17/449) died within 30 days. The GPS classified a greater proportion of patients as low risk (92% [413/449]) than the PESI (36.3% [163/449]) and the sPESI (39.6% [178/449]) (P<0.001 for each comparison). Low-risk patients based on the sPESI had a mortality of 0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-2.1%) compared to 0.6% (95% CI 0-3.4%) for low-risk patients based on the PESI and 3.4% (95% CI 1.9-5.6%) for low-risk patients based on the GPS. The areas under the ROC curves were 0.77 (95%CI 0.72-0.81), 0.76 (95% CI 0.72-0.80), and 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75), respectively (P=0.47). Conclusions: In this cohort of elderly patients with PE, the GPS identified a higher proportion of patients as low-risk but the PESI and sPESI were more accurate in predicting mortality.

Simultaneous acute pulmonary embolism and isolated septal myocardial infarction in a young patient

While the overall incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) has been decreasing since 2000 [1], there is an increasing number of younger patients presenting with MI [2]. Few studies have focused on MI in very young patients, aged 35 years or less, as they only account for a minority of all patients with myocardial infarction [3]. According to the age category, MI differs in presentation, treatment and outcome, as illustrated in table 1. Echocardiography is considered mandatory according to scientific guidelines in the management and diagnosis of MI [4,5,6]. However, new imaging techniques such as cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and computed tomography (CT) are increasingly performed and enable further refinement of the diagnosis of MI. These techniques allow, in particular, precise location and quantification of MI. In this case, MI was located to the septum, which is an unusual presentation of MI. The incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) has also increased in young patients over the past years [7]. Since symptoms and signs of PE may be non-specific, establishing its diagnosis remains a challenge [8]. Therefore, PE is one of the most frequently missed diagnosis in clinical medicine. Because of the widespread use of CT and its improved visualization of pulmonary arteries, PE may be discovered incidentally [9]. In the absence of a congenital disorder, multiple and/or simultaneous disease presentation is uncommon in the young. We report the rare case of a 35 year old male with isolated septal MI and simultaneous PE. The diagnosis of this rare clinical entity was only possible by means of newer imaging techniques.

Prevalence of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in superficial thrombophlebitis of the lower limbs: prospective study of 60 cases

Aim. Superficial thrombophlebitis (ST) ascending the lower limbs is a common disease, which may be associated with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of DVT and PE as complications of ascending ST of the lower limbs in the great saphenous vein (GSV) or SSV (SSV) and probable risk factors.Methods. For this study 60 consecutive patients were enrolled with ascending ST of the GSV or SSV, seen between 2000 and 2003 at a public hospital in Botucatu, SP, Brazil. All patients were assessed clinically, by venous Duplex scanning of the lower limbs to confirm ST and test for DVT, and by means of pulmonary scintigraphy to test for PE.Results. In 13 ST cases (21.67%) there was concomitant DVT and 17 ST patients (28.33%) also had PE. Eleven patients had a clinical status suggestive of DVT, but only in eight of these (61.5%), this clinical diagnosis was confirmed. Fourteen patients had a clinical status suggestive of PE, and this diagnosis was confirmed in six cases (35.30%). ST patients who also had DVT and/or PE were given anticoagulant treatment with heparin and warfarin. None of the variables studied was predictive of DVT or PE (P>0.05). However, the presence of varicose veins reduced the risk of patients having DVT (relative risk=9.09; 95%CI:1.75 - 50.00 and P=0.023).Conclusion. The prevalence rates of PE (28.3%) and DVT (21.6%) were elevated in this sample of ascending ST cases, indicating a need for detailed assessment of patients for signs of these complications, including for therapeutic management decision making. [Int Angiol 2009;28:400-8]

Anticoagulant treatment for subsegmental pulmonary embolism

BackgroundAcute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of death, accounting for 50,000 to 200,000 deaths annually. It is the third most common cause of mortality among the cardiovascular diseases, after coronary artery disease and stroke.The advent of multi-detector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has allowed better assessment of PE regarding visualisation of the peripheral pulmonary arteries, increasing its rate of diagnosis. More cases of peripheral PEs, such as isolated subsegmental PE (SSPE) and incidental PE, have thereby been identified. These two conditions are usually found in patients with few or none of the classic PE symptoms such as haemoptysis or pleuritic pain, acute dyspnoea or circulatory collapse. However, in patients with reduced cardio-pulmonary (C/P) reserve the classic PE symptoms can be found with isolated SSPEs. Incidental SSPE is found casually in asymptomatic patients, usually by diagnostic imaging performed for other reasons (for example routine CT for cancer staging in oncologic patients).Traditionally, all PEs are anticoagulated in a similar manner independent of the location, number and size of the thrombi. It has been suggested that many patients with SSPE may be treated without benefit, increasing adverse events by possible unnecessary use of anticoagulants.Patients with isolated SSPE or incidental PE may have a more benign clinical presentation compared with those with proximal PEs. However, the clinical significance in patients and their prognosis have to be studied to evaluate whether anticoagulation therapy is required.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE.Search methodsThe Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 9). MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and clinical trials databases were also searched (October 2013).Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with SSPE or incidental SSPE.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors inspected all citations to ensure reliable selection. We planned for two review authors to independently extract data and to assess the methodological quality of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Main resultsNo studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria.Authors' conclusionsThere is no randomised controlled trial evidence for the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE, and therefore we can not draw any conclusions. Well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.

Hemodynamic effects of combined sildenafil and L-arginine during acute pulmonary embolism-induced pulmonary hypertension

Sildenafil attenuates acute pulmonary embolism-induced pulmonary hypertension. However, the hemodynamic effects of sildenafil in combination with other vasodilators during acute pulmonary embolism have not been examined yet. In the present study, we examined the hemodynamic effects of combined sildenafil (0.25 mg/kg, i.v.) and L-arginine (100, 200, 500, and 1000 mg/kg/h, i.v.) in an anesthetized dog model of acute pulmonary embolism. Plasma nitrite/nitrate (NOx) and cGMP concentrations were determined using an ozone-based chemiluminescence assay and a commercial enzyme immunoassay, respectively. We found that L-arginine alone did not attenuate acute pulmonary embolism-induced pulmonary hypertension. However, significant decreases in mean pulmonary artery pressure were observed 30, 45, 60, and 75 min after the administration of sildenafil alone or after the combined administration of sildenafil and L-arginine (all P<0.05). No significant differences among groups were observed in the respiratory parameters. While L-arginine significantly increased NOx concentrations, cGMP concentrations increased only when sildenafil was administered (all P<0.05). These results suggest that while sildenafil attenuates acute pulmonary embolism-induced pulmonary hypertension, L-arginine does not enhance the beneficial hemodynamic effects of sildenafil. In addition, these findings suggest that stimulation of NO synthesis with L-arginine during acute pulmonary embolism does not produce beneficial effects. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Effects of different inspired oxygen fractions on sildenafil-induced pulmonary anti-hypertensive effects in a sheep model of acute pulmonary embolism

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people per year. Outpatient treatment instead of traditional inpatient treatment in selected non-high-risk patients with acute PE might provide several advantages, such as reduction of hospitalizations, substantial cost saving and an improvement in health-related quality of life. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; and adverse events such as hemodynamic instability, recurrence of PE and patients'satisfaction.Search methodsThe Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 9). The TSC also searched clinical trials databases. The review authors searched LILACS (last searched November 2014). Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in people diagnosed with acute PE. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analyzed data. Main results: We included one study, involving 339 participants. We ranked the quality of the evidence as very low due to not blinding the outcome assessors, the small number of events with imprecision in the confidential interval (CI), the small sample size and it was not possible to verify publication bias. For all outcomes, the CIs were wide and included clinically significant treatment effects in both directions: short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30) and 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.14, P = 0.20), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51) and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.30). PE-related mortality, minor bleeding, and adverse course such as hemodynamic instability and compliance were not assessed by the single included study. Authors' conclusions: Current very low quality evidence from one published randomized controlled trial did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE adequately. Further well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.