1 / 39

What’s New in the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism

What’s New in the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism. December 2009 David Garcia, MD Associate Professor University of New Mexico. Outline. Can we identify PE patients at low risk of adverse outcomes ? How long should patients with PE be treated with warfarin?

jean
Download Presentation

What’s New in the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What’s New in the Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism December 2009 David Garcia, MD Associate Professor University of New Mexico

  2. Outline • Can we identify PE patients at low risk of adverse outcomes? • How long should patients with PE be treated with warfarin? • When is thrombolysis appropriate?

  3. Risk-stratifying PE patients • Mortality among patients with PE is high – 17% in one study • Many clinicians believe that a subset of patients with PE could be safely treated out of hospital • How to identify patients at high or low risk of adverse outcomes

  4. PE Severity Index (PESI) Aujesky, et al. Archives Internal Medicine. 2006;166:169-175

  5. INDEPENDENT PREDICTORS OF 30-DAY MORTALITY IN THE DERIVATION SAMPLE AND POINTS ASSIGNED TO THE RISK SCORE Point total and risk class: < 65 class I; 66-85 class II; 86-105 class III; 106-125 class IV; > 125 class V.

  6. Validation Cohort 30-Day Mortality and Adverse Events Within Risk Strata Derived From the PESI Prediction Rule* % in risk class* % dead* % in risk class* % dead* * Parentheses are 95% CI Jimenez et al Chest 2007 vol. 132(1):P 7-8.

  7. Although not yet the U.S. standard of care, medium-quality evidence supports out-of-hospital PE treatment in selected patients 1. Wells PS. 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 2. Kovacs MJ. Outpatient treatment of pulmonary embolism with dalteparin. Thrombosis & Haemostasis. 2000;83:209-211 3. Kearon C. Comparison of fixed-dose weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin for acute treatment of venous thromboembolism. Jama. 2006;296:935-942 4. Buller HR. Subcutaneous fondaparinux versus intravenous unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1695-1702

  8. Absolute Active bleeding or positive stool guiac Thrombocytopenia <100K Major surgery/trauma or CVA <2 weeks Phlegmasia Symptomatic PE Severe renal dysfunction Recent GI bleeding Hypertensive emergency History of heparin sensitivity or HIT Active or major comorbid illness Relative History of familial bleeding disorder Morbid obesity Iliofemoral DVT Pregnancy Underlying liver disorder Age > 75yrs Acquired or congenital hypercoagulable state Outpatient VTE ProtocolClinical Exclusionary Criteria* Based on compedium of RCT’s and observational studies

  9. Psychosocial and/or Socioeconomic Exclusionary Factors from Outpatient VTE Treatment • History of non-compliance with medicines • History of substance abuse • Language barrier • Inability to pay for LMWH • Inaccessibility to clinic or telephone • Unstable home environment • Incompetence to assume responsibility for self-care or inability for family/friend/nurse to administer care Above are relative exclusionary risk factors

  10. Acute Treatment of DVT Product Dosing heparin aPTT or anti-Xa1.5-2.5 x control (use nomogram) OR (unfract.) give weight-based SC dosing (see Kearon et al. JAMA 2006) enoxaparin1.0 mg/kg sc. every 12 hrs OR 1.5 mg/kg sc. once a day tinzaparin175 anti Xa IU/kg once daily dalteparin 200 anti Xa IU/kg once daily OR 100 anti Xa IU/kg every 12 hrs fondaparinux 7.5 mg SC q.d.

  11. ACCP Consensus Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy • In patients with acute DVT and “submassive” PE, initial treatment with LMWH or fondaparinux recommended over unfractionated heparin… Kearonet al. Chest 2008.

  12. Major Bleeding (n=3674) Recurrent Thromboembolism (n=3566) Primary Studies Duroux, 1991 (nadroparin) Hull, 1992 (tinzaparin) Prandoni, 1992 (nadroparin) Lopaciuk, 1992 (nadroparin) Simonneau, 1993 (enoxaparin) Lindmarker, 1994 (daltiparin) Levine, 1996 (enoxaparin) Koopman, 1995 (nadroparin) Fiessinger, 1996 (dalteparin) Luomanmaki, 1998 (dalteparin) Columbus, 1997 (riviparin) OR, 0.57 (P=0.047) OR, 0.71 (P =0.25) OR, 0.85 (P=0.28) OR, 0.87 (P =0.40) 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Favors LMWH Favors UFH Favors LMWH Favors UFH Odds Ratio Odds Ratio DVT treatment: LMWH vs. IV UFH Gould ANN INT MED 1999

  13. LMWH vs. UFH in treatment of PE – symptomatic VTE at end of treatment Quinlan Ann Int Med 2004

  14. UFH in the “REAL WORLD” • 311 patients being bridged with UFH to warfarin • Once aPTT in range, next 2 measurements were therapeutic only 29% of the time • Therapeutic range maintained for 4 consecutive days only 7% of the patients • 54% had at least one prolonged interruption of their infusion Hylek et al. Arch Int Med 2003 163(5):621-7.

  15. Are all “provoked” clots the same? Unprovoked (n=192) Non-surgical RF: cast, immobilization, estrogen, travel (n=279) Surgery (n=86) Baglin et al. Lancet. 2003 Aug 16;362(9383):523-6.

  16. Risk factors for recurrence Kearon et al Chest 2008 133: 454S-545S

  17. Hylek, EM.

  18. Hylek, EM

  19. My Approach Treat Proximal DVT or PE (unprovoked) at least 3-6 months • Ensure the patient is up-to-date on age-appropriate cancer screening and perform careful physical exam and review of systems. • Discuss risks/benefits of extended therapy with all patients. • Encourage extended therapy for patients who: are male have had previous VTE had PE (rather than DVT) as their index event have poor cardiopulmonary reserve have stable INR values • Test young patients for antiphospholipid syndrome. • Consider d-dimertesting and/or repeat ultrasound if other factors equivocal.

  20. When are thrombolytic agents appropriate for patients with PE? • Hypotension, shock • Consensus that risk > benefit • RV dysfunction, elevated laboratory markers (e.g. troponin) • Evidence not definitive • Controversy persists

  21. Odds of short-term death in patients with elevated (vs. normal) troponin levels Troponin I Troponin T Becattini C, et al. Prognostic value of troponins in acute pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2007 Jul 24;116(4):427-33.

  22. Right Ventricular Dysfunction (RVD): a risk factor for mortality No. of patients (% mortality) Dalen, JE. Arch Int Med 2002, 162:2521-2523

  23. Alteplase for PE • Sexy, recombinant “clot-busting” technology • Improves V/Q scans, reduces angiographic clot burden, lowers pulmonary artery & RV pressures • More “active” than simple anticoagulation

  24. Heparins for PE –Room to improve? • For patients with PE treated with heparin (or LMWH) + warfarin, the overall in-hospital mortality due to PE is 2.2%.1,2 1 Douketis, et al. “Risk of fatal PE in pts with treated venous thromboembolism” JAMA 1998, 279:458-462. 2 Carson, et al. “The clinical course of pulmonary embolism” NEJM 1992, 326:1240-1245..

  25. Thrombolytic Therapyand Bleeding

  26. Other ideas that “made sense” • Anti-arrhythmic drugs to suppress PVC’s post-MI • Hormone replacement therapy to stroke and ACS in postmenopausal women

  27. Thrombolysis for PE with RVD: a randomized, controlled trial. 256 patients Hemodynamically stable (+) RV dysfunction RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND* Heparin “5000/1000” + placebo n=138 Heparin “5000/1000” + alteplase n=118 Primary end point: in-hospital death + “escalation of treatment”

  28. “Escalation of Treatment” • Endotracheal Intubation • Catecholamine Infusion • Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation • “Secondary” Thrombolysis

  29. Event-free SurvivalKonstantinides, S et al. NEJM 2003, 347(15): 1143-1150. 100 heparin + alteplase 90 80 P=0.005 70 heparin + placebo 60 50 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

  30. In-Hospital Clinical Events (%)Konstantinides, S et al. NEJM 2003, 347(15): 1143-1150.

  31. In-Hospital Clinical Events (%)Konstantinides, S et al. NEJM 2003, 347(15): 1143-1150.

  32. In-Hospital Clinical Events (%)Konstantinides, S et al. NEJM 2003, 347(15): 1143-1150.

  33. MAPPET-3Konstantinides, S et al. NEJM 2003, 347(15): 1143-1150. • Did the placebo patients really “deteriorate” more frequently than the alteplase patients?

  34. Thrombolysis for PE with RVD: a randomized, controlled trial. 256 patients Hemodynamically stable (+) RV dysfunction RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND* heparin + alteplase n=118 heparin + placebo n=138 *Investigators contemplating open-label alteplase were permitted to break the randomization code!

  35. In-Hospital Clinical Events (%)Konstantinides, S et al. NEJM 2003, 347(15): 1143-1150.

  36. Thrombolytic Therapyand Bleeding

  37. MAPPET – 3:Conclusions • Patients in the “heparin + placebo” arm received alteplase more often than patients in the “heparin + alteplase” arm. • Patients with “RV dysfunction” given a suboptimal heparin regimen + placebo have an in-hospital mortality rate of only 2.2%!

  38. Overall Conclusions • Risk prediction models allow clinicians to identify PE patients at high (or low) risk of death. • LMWH and fonda preferred over UFH. • Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the hypothesis that selected “low risk” patients can be treated entirely out-of-hospital. • Duration must be individualized but latest guidelines lean toward extended therapy • Currently available evidence does not support the routine use of thrombolytic agents among patients with submassive PE.

More Related