Welcome back to the tasty morsels of critical care podcast.

This is the second of 2 parts on PE in critical care. The first focused on risk stratification and this one will focus on management. There is a link to a transcript of a more comprehensive talk with references on emergencymedicineireland.com for those keen enough to dive a little deeper. As noted in the last podcast this one leans very heavily on “in the my experience” level of the evidence pyramid and should be weighted as such.

For this discussion I’m going to assume your patient is in the ESC High risk category, ie hypotensive with a PE on imaging and you’re satisfied that the PE is causing the hypotension. I do believe there is a tiny cohort of the PE population who warrant aggressive reperfusion even with a normal appearing BP but at this stage I cannot say I have any evidence or guidance to really identify who they are and back that up.

For the original talk I gave on this to an EM audience, I split the interventions into helpful , distractions, and not helpful. It was probably a little bit of a provocative division if I’m honest. The slide is on the site for reference and viewing it will likely make what follows more edifying.

For the resus room patient in the first 30-60 mins I feel comfortable to standby my assertion that a short list of “helpful interventions” should includes lysis, anticoagulation, noradrenaline, oxygen and some CPR. In the ICU however we’re often present both at the first 30-60 mins but over next hours and many of the items on the “distraction” list become a little more relevant with time.

Number 1 on my list of helpful interventions is thrombolysis. As mentioned, if you have found PE and you have satisfied yourself that the sickness and hypotension you’re seeing is caused by that PE then you need to have a good reason not give thrombolysis. The evidence base is not high level RCTs but it is a class 1 recommendation on the ESC guidelines and the list of class 1 interventions is really quite short. In the 25 year old in resus with a massive PE day 3 after an arthroscopy the decision here seems pretty straightforward. However in the post trauma patient in the ICU with massive PE with a small traumatic SAH and an improving SDH and a recent laparotomy then the decision is orders of magnitude more complex and you may well find a very good reason why lysis is not an option.

There is not a straightforward answer to lysis because it will vary from patient to patient but I would emphasis that it is a question worth dedicating a decent chunk of your cognitive bandwidth to.

Dosing in an unstable patient is often 10mg of alteplase followed by 90mg over 2 hrs. Dosing in a cardiac arrest situation is typically a 50mg bolus.

Anticoagulation is one of the other class 1 recommendations on the ESC list. Opinions vary on agent of choice. With my ICU hat on I will almost always advocate for UFH as I feel confident that if i stop it, the heparin effect will be gone in a couple of hours when the inevitable bleeding starts. Opinions vary and I know smart people who advocate for LMWH in this scenario with one of the arguments being you probably get more reliable and quicker anti Xa effect.

Both the guidelines and your esteemed narrator recommend against volume resuscitation. Dumping a litre of crystalloid into the venous circulation will shift the IVS further towards the left impairing cardiac filling and doing the opposite of what you intended.

A much better resuscitation fluid would be noradrenaline. This is remarkably effective in improving BP and perfusion and I have often used it when I am 90% sure the patient has a PE but haven’t quite got the CT scan to prove it. The noradrenaline can also buy you a little time to make a better decision about the lysis and reperfusion, converting what would have been an immediate decision into something that you maybe have more like 30 mins to make. Certainly if the noradrenaline dosage is rising and the right heart is struggling then adrenaline would be my add on inotrope of choice.

Of course we know in the ICU we have a plethora of other agents available to us with lots of theoretical advantage on pulmonary vascular resistance etc. They would rarely be my first line, certainly not in the ED population but I would often reach for them a little further down the line once i have a better handle on the physiology and what they might tolerate. Enough to say that staring someone on 0.5mcg/kg/min milrinone as a single agent with a starting BP of 60/40 is not likely to end well in this context

Oxygenation is strongly endorsed given its proclivity for reduction in PVR, however intubating someone in this context to facilitate oxygenation is likely to result in a catastrophic haemodynamic collapse. The adage “resuscitate before you intubate” or even “reperfuse before you intubate” has some relevance here.

I find CPR to be helpful in the context of massive PE, not simply for the usual reasons of preserving some degree of forward flow but I suspect there is a mechanical effect of breaking up or moving clot more distally. I have frequently seen stuttering intermittent ROSC in this context. I would suggest caution with the mechanical CPR devices as the presence of a liver lac in the context of tPA is unlikely to be well tolerated.

While not available or that relevant to the emergency medicine population I do think the addition of nitric in the ventilated ICU patient who develops nasty PE seems like a low risk intervention with potentially massive gains. There is a small RCT of nitric in the spontaneous breathing PE population that did not however show benefit.

I put mechanical devices in the “distraction” category in my original talk as I don’t think they have much relevance in the early stage of resuscitation. However if you have kept them alive long enough or if you have a true contraindication to lysis or a failed lysis then they may well have a role. I have found the evidence base so far here decidedly underwhelming and for catheter directed lysis in particular i struggle to see how a mg/hr tpa via a pulmonary catheter is any different than a mg/hr of tpa via a peripheral IV line given that the entire venous return ends up in the pulmonary circulation either way.

The thrombectomy devices are certainly more compelling from a physiological perspective and the obvious and dramatic changes in physiology on removal of clot are quite compelling. But they are a tremendous faff requiring a catheter akin to an ECMO catheter to be threaded into the pulmonary circulation. The recent PEERLESS trial gave an average 90 min procedure time emphasizing the need to keep the patient alive long enough to receive the intervention.

I do feel this has a role in our management quiver I am just unsure what that role is, but more evidence in the coming years will likely clarify

VA ECMO is undoubtedly a fantastic physiological support for a dying PE patient but bear in mind it is almost definitely not available to you in the vast majority of hospitals in the Ireland and the UK.

PERT teams are groups of relevant physicians willing to weigh in on difficult PE cases to advise on management. I put PERT teams in the distraction category. And I feel bad about that because they’re usually filled with knowledgeable and enthusiastic people . But there are 2 errors I’ve seen on this that we should be aware of.

One is on us as primary clinicians where we outsource the decision to lyse in someone who has a clear indication. This is not necessarily the fault of the PERT team but there is risk to the patient in delaying as it is a tremendous faff trying to get hold of the relevant people and then get them to agree.

The second distraction that can happen is the recommendation for interventions in a patient that they have not seen and are not present to. A couple of times I have had to talk people out of IR interventions that frankly were not needed because the patient was getting better with conventional treatment. Do not underestimate the importance of being at the bedside and seeing the patient and evaluating response to treatment.

Surgery, in terms of pulmonary embolectomy is the third and final class 1 recommendation in the ESC guidelines for high risk PE. All be it with a very low evidence rating. It gets talked about in papers and guidelines but you’re talking about taking someone who is already mostly dead into theatre, lined, anaesthetised, chest opened and onto bypass. There probably is a role for it somewhere and in certain institutions and it’s often raised in the context of contraindications to lysis but those same contraindications to lysis usually apply to the 30000 units of heparin you need to get them on bypass. It seems to suffer from the old goldilocks flaw of “not sick enough” for theatre or “too sick” for theatre

I have clearly done way beyond my usual brevity in this scenario but honestly didn’t think anyone could tolerate a 3rd part on PE. Full refunds are available on request

For further reading it is probably best to visit the original lecture post where the relevant papers are all listed with a little smattering of critical appraisal thrown in for good measure.