Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Home at last? Early discharge for acute pulmonary embolism

V. F. Tapson, M. V. Huisman
European Respiratory Journal 2007 30: 613-615; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00098007
V. F. Tapson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. V. Huisman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Antithrombotic treatment for acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) should consist of a therapeutic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for ≥5 days, followed by a vitamin K antagonist for ≥3 months. LMWH has simplified the initial management of DVT because it is at least as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin and can be administered in fixed subcutaneous doses without laboratory monitoring 1. These advantages over standard, unfractionated heparin allow the majority of patients with DVT to be treated at home without being admitted to hospital, improve the quality of life and reduce healthcare costs 2, 3. While a recent meta-analysis concluded that LMWH is at least as effective and safe as unfractionated heparin for the initial treatment of nonmassive PE 4, the question of starting treatment for PE in the outpatient setting has been less satisfactorily addressed. While DVT and PE are clearly manifestations of one pathophysiological process, it cannot be assumed that they can always be treated the same. Patients treated for PE appear to be almost four times as likely (1.5 versus 0.4%) to die of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the following year than patients treated for DVT 5. While outpatient PE therapy for carefully selected patients may already be the standard of care 6, for certain experienced physicians, many practitioners are less secure with this approach. Based on data from Davies et al. 7 in the current issue of the European Respiratory Journal, one may move closer to a comfort level.

Previous trials have suggested the feasibility of early discharge or entire outpatient therapy for acute PE, but have had limitations including study size, retrospective data collection and/or lack of randomisation 8–14. Certain large randomised outpatient DVT trials have included PE patients, but again, small numbers have precluded firm conclusions 15.

However, several previous studies have given more reason to believe that outpatient therapy is feasible 6, 16. Kovacs et al. 16 published results from a nonrandomised but prospective cohort of PE patients managed in the outpatient setting, clearly outlining inclusion and exclusion criteria. Obvious indications for admission included haemodynamic instability, but any patient requiring oxygen also had to be admitted. Other reasons for hospitalisation included: another medical indication; severe pain requiring parenteral analgesia; or high risk of bleeding. Of the 108 PE patients treated in the outpatient setting, 81 were managed exclusively as outpatients, with an overall symptomatic recurrence rate of VTE of six (5.6%) out of 108 and a major bleeding rate of only two (1.9%) out of 108. There were four deaths, none of which were due to PE or major bleeding. The recurrence rates demonstrated were about the same as in large randomised trials examining predominantly or only DVT in the outpatient setting 15, 17, 18; the major bleeding rates were as low or lower. While nonrandomised, this study set the stage for a closer look.

Wells et al. 14 have already examined the feasibility of outpatient PE therapy as part of a large outpatient DVT therapy effort. In the latter study, 34 patients with acute PE were treated as outpatients. In 2005, Wells et al. 6 published a prospective outpatient study in which patients were randomised to one of two LMWH preparations for outpatient therapy of acute DVT and/or PE (but not randomised to in-patient versus outpatient therapy). Of the 505 randomised patients, 90 had acute PE. PE patients were specifically excluded if they had associated hypotension, hypoxaemia on room air, or severe pain requiring intravenous narcotics. In the 90 PE patients, only two had a recurrent thromboembolic event. There were no major haemorrhages. Three patients with PE died of other causes during the 90-day follow-up. Again, these results are at least as good as the overall outcome event rates in patients with DVT only, further suggesting the appropriateness of outpatient therapy for acute PE.

Davies et al. 7 report an outpatient treatment study in patients with acute PE. The design of the study included an initial exploratory phase in which physicians were asked to indicate whether 225 patients with acute PE, all treated as in-patients, could be discharged early. For each patient deemed unsuitable for outpatient management, the clinician recorded and clearly outlined the rationale for exclusion. The same exclusion criteria were then validated in the subsequent phase of the study, in which 157 patients with confirmed PE were enrolled and follow-up was available in all but one of them. In these patients, who were predominantly treated in the outpatient setting, the outcomes were remarkably good. No VTE or major bleeding events occurred. There were only three non-PE-related deaths, all of which occurred after the acute treatment phase. Of the 124 patients who completed a satisfaction score, 81 (65%) gave a score of 10, indicating maximum satisfaction. Furthermore, 144 (97%) out of 149 patients indicated that they would prefer outpatient therapy if they had a subsequent PE. It is worth noting that the study was not entirely in the outpatient treatment setting but was an early discharge study. Patients stayed in the hospital for the median 1 day required for objective testing for PE, and LMWH treatment was given to a proportion of patients during daily hospital visits. While Davies et al. 7 conclude that outpatient treatment of PE is safe and effective in their population, the study does have limitations. First, and most importantly, patients were not randomised. It is known that outcome outside the clinical trial setting is often rosier than in carefully controlled studies. In addition, the selection process of study patients in the second phase of the study was not well described and it is impossible to tell exactly how patients entered the outpatient cohort. A reflection of this selection process may be the very low 1.9% death rate during the 3-month follow-up, suggesting that a highly selective group of outpatients had been chosen to be treated out of the hospital, given that a 3-month mortality of 7–8% has been reported for patients with PE in recent population-based studies 19. Nonetheless, the assumed highly selected patients who met the criteria to be treated as outpatients in phase 2 did have an excellent outcome 7. Careful triage of patients is crucial in the success of any home-treatment programme of patients with acute VTE and only transparent reporting of inclusion and exclusion criteria from carefully designed studies will lead to a higher acceptance of outpatient therapy for acute, stable PE 2.

Prognostic considerations in PE are important to both stratify patients for more aggressive (e.g. thrombolytic) therapy as well as to assist in determining which patients are the best candidates for outpatient therapy for acute PE. Thus, another drawback in the selection of patients in the study by Davies et al. 7 is the absence of any risk stratification on the basis of echocardiography, biomarker measurements (including troponin or brain natriuretic peptide (BNP)) or use of any prognosticating tool. The presence of right ventricular dysfunction at echocardiography or computed tomography at presentation or hospital discharge 20, 21, as well as increased troponin or BNP plasma concentrations, have all been demonstrated to be associated with a poorer outcome in patients with haemodynamically stable PE. However, neither of these markers have been prospectively validated in a management study; therefore, the predictive value of these methods is still uncertain. More recently, heart-type fatty acid-binding protein has been shown to be a promising early indicator of right ventricular injury and dysfunction, even when the right ventricle is normal as assessed by echocardiography 22.

Prognostic models have been developed and validated and may help determine patients who were at risk for poor outcomes. The Geneva score has been developed and subsequently validated 23 and requires an arterial blood gas measurement as well as ultrasound of the legs. Aujesky et al. 24 recently developed and validated a PE severity index (PESI) in patients with proven PE, utilising 11 routinely available clinical parameters and providing physicians with a bedside PE risk assessment tool, without need for imaging or laboratory tests. This model appeared to accurately identify patients with PE at low risk of fatal and nonfatal medical outcomes. The test characteristics of the Geneva model and the Aujesky model for predicting 30-day outcomes (mortality, VTE recurrences and major bleeding) have recently been compared 25. The discriminatory power of both prognostic models was compared, with the PESI quantifying the prognosis of patients with PE better than the Geneva score. The PESI classified fewer patients into the low-risk strata than in previous studies. However, this score was still able to identify ∼25% of patients who had very low risk of an adverse event. It proved very useful in identifying patients who can undergo initial acute PE therapy with good outcomes.

The study by Davies et al. 7 reinforces the fact that selected patients can be quickly discharged and safely treated in the outpatient setting, but a clearer identification of selection criteria would offer the potential for more widespread acceptance of this approach. Basic considerations, such as haemodynamic stability and lack of oxygen requirement, are intuitive; perhaps applying a previously validated prognostic score 23, 24 would facilitate a more standardised approach. Large randomised studies comparing outpatient to in-hospital treatment of patients with pulmonary embolism would be useful, and the use of prognostic models might offer greater guaranteed safety for this approach 25. Medical therapy continues to move in the outpatient direction when possible, with the goals of cost savings and patient satisfaction. A reduction in iatrogenic problems and nosocomial disease are potential benefits. Nonetheless, a means by which the approach to outpatient therapy can be standardised further is crucial.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Gould MK. Dembitzer AD, Doyle RL, Hastie TJ, Garber AM. Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:800–809.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      Eikelboom J, Baker R. Routine home treatment of deep-vein thrombosis. BMJ 2001;322:1192–1193.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      Gould MK. Dembitzer AD, Sanders GD, Garber AM. Low-molecular-weight heparins compared with unfractionated heparin for treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:789–799.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      Quinlan D. McQuillan A, Eikelboom JW. Low-molecular-weight heparin compared with intravenous unfractionated heparin for treatment of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:175–183.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Douketis JD, Kearon C, Bates S. Duku EK, Ginsberg JS. Risk of fatal pulmonary embolism in patients with treated venous thromboembolism. JAMA 1998;279:458–462.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger MA, et al. A randomized trial comparing 2 low-molecular-weight heparins for the outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:733–738.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      Davies CWH, Wimperis J, Green ES, et al. Early discharge of patients with pulmonary embolism: a two-phase observational study. Eur Respir J 2007; 30: 708–714
    8. ↵
      Dager WE, King JH, Branch JM, et al. Tinzaparin in outpatients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. Ann Pharmacother 2005;39:1182–1187.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. Lim AY, Parr DG, Stableforth DE, Fellows M, Fontaine R, Fegan CD. Early discharge and home supervision of patients with pulmonary embolism treated with low-molecular weight heparin. Eur J Intern Med 2003;14:89–93.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. Ong BS, Karr MA, Chan DKY, Frankel A, Shen Q. Management of pulmonary embolism in the home. Med J Aust 2005;183:239–242.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    11. Siragusa S, Arcara C, Malato A, et al. Home therapy for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2005;16: Suppl. 4 iv136–iv139.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. Beer JH, Burger M, Gretener S. Bernard-Bagattini S, Bounameaux H. Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism is feasible and safe in a substantial proportion of patients. J Thromb Haemost 2003;1:186–187.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    13. Olsson CG, Bitzén U, Olsson B, et al. Outpatient tinzaparin therapy in pulmonary embolism quantified with ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy. Med Sci Monit 2006;12:PI9–PI13.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      Wells PS, Kovacs MJ, Bormanis J, et al. Expanding eligibility for outpatient treatment of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism with low-molecular-weight heparin: a comparison of patient self-injection with homecare injection. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1809–1812.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      The Columbus Investigators. Low-molecular-weight heparin in the treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med 1997;337:657–662.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    16. ↵
      Kovacs MJ, Anderson D, Morrow B. Gray L, Touchie D, Wells PS. Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism with dalteparin. Thromb Haemost 2000;83:209–211.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      Levine M, Gent M, Hirsh J, et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin administered primarily at home with unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital for proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med 1996;334:677–681.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      Koopman MM, Prandoni P, Piovella F, et al. Treatment of venous thrombosis with intravenous unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital as compared with subcutaneous LMWH administered at home. The Tasman Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996;334:682–687.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      Nijkeuter M. Söhne M, Tick LW, et al. The natural course of hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism: clinical outcome and risk factors in a large prospective cohort study. Chest 2007;131:517–523.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      Grifoni S. Vanni S, Magazzini S, et al. Association of persistent right ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge after acute pulmonary embolism with recurrent thromboembolic events. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:2151–2156.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      van der Meer RW. Pattynama PM, van Strijen MJ, et al. Right ventricular dysfunction and pulmonary obstruction index at helical CT: prediction of clinical outcome during 3-month follow-up in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Radiology 2005;235:798–803.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      Puls M, Dellas C, Lankeit M, et al. Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein permits early risk stratification of pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J 2007;28:224–229.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      Nendaz MR, Bandelier P, Aujesky D, et al. Validation of a risk score identifying patients with acute pulmonary embolism, who are at low risk of clinical adverse outcome. Thromb Haemost 2004;91:1232–1236.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      Aujesky D, Roy PM, Le Manach CP, et al. Validation of a model to predict adverse outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J 2006;27:476–481.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. ↵
      Jiménez D, Yusen RD, Otero R, et al. Prognostic models for selecting patients with acute pulmonary embolism for initial outpatient therapy. Chest 2007;132:24–30.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 30 Issue 4 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 30 (4)
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Home at last? Early discharge for acute pulmonary embolism
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Home at last? Early discharge for acute pulmonary embolism
    V. F. Tapson, M. V. Huisman
    European Respiratory Journal Oct 2007, 30 (4) 613-615; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00098007

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Home at last? Early discharge for acute pulmonary embolism
    V. F. Tapson, M. V. Huisman
    European Respiratory Journal Oct 2007, 30 (4) 613-615; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00098007
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • SARS-CoV-2-induced senescence as a potential therapeutic target
    • Are intravenous corticosteroid pulses superior to low dose corticosteroids in patients with severe Covid-19?
    • Commemorating World Tuberculosis Day 2022
    Show more Editorial

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society