Supported via arm's length funding from Bayer

Highlights from

ISTH 2019

The International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Melbourne 6-10 July 2019

Post-hoc analysis of the YEARS study provides new insights into home management of acute PE

Take-home messages
  • Previous studies have suggested that 30-55% of low-risk patients with acute PE can be treated at home
  • A post-hoc analysis of the YEARS study showed that 43% of patients with PE were treated at home
  • Rates of PE-related re-admission did not differ between outpatients treated at home versus in the hospital
"43% of all outpatients were treated at home, the rates of adverse events were low, and PE-related re-admission rates did not differ between patients treated at home or in hospital."

Dr Stephan Hendriks, Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the Netherlands.

Developments in prognostic risk stratification and the availability of orally administered anticoagulants have made home treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) both safe and feasible - in 30-55% of patients, as shown by previous studies. Home treatment can improve quality of life and can substantially reduce healthcare costs.1

"Detailed data from day-to-day clinical practice are largely unavailable, therefore we aimed to evaluate current practice patterns and outcomes of home treatment in PE patients throughout the Netherlands," explained Dr Stephan Hendriks, Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the Netherlands.

His team analysed data post hoc from YEARS, a prospective, diagnostic management study across 12 hospitals. The analysis looked at 456 adult patients with suspected acute PE, excluding those who were pregnant, had a contraindication for CT pulmonary angiography, were not available for follow-up, or had received anticoagulation of ≥24 hours. Twelve patients were excluded as they were diagnosed with PE during hospitalisation.

The primary outcomes included the proportion of PE patients treated at home and the reasons for admission (if treated in hospital), and secondary outcomes included the 3-month incidence of PE-related re-admissions in the two groups. Hestia criteria were used to assess risk.

"Of all 444 patients included in this experiment, 191 were treated at home. So, 43% [95% CI: 38-48] of all patients were discharged from hospital within 24 hours. Those patients tended to be younger than those who were hospitalised, and also had less signs of renal dysfunction."

Mean age was 56 (SD: 16) versus 62 (SD: 16) and CrCl <60 mL/min was 12% (n=23) versus 22% (n=54) in the home treatment versus hospitalised group.

For the 253 (53%) patients who were hospitalised, the main reasons were: for oxygen administration (frequency: 78; 32% of patients) and/or medical or social reasons (frequency: 100; 41%).

Commenting on secondary outcomes of the analysis, Dr Hendriks continued, “the 3-month cumulative incidence of any adverse event was 3.7% in those treated at home, consisting of two recurrent VTEs, three major bleeds and two deaths. This is important, because recurrent VTEs and the major bleeds did not turn out to be fatal. Also, the two deaths were not adjudicated to be associated with VTE.” These deaths were attributed to progressive lung carcinoma and non-specific interstitial pneumonia.

In the hospitalised group, 3-month incidence of any adverse event was 9.5% (three cases of recurrent VTE, six major bleeding events and 14 deaths).

PE-related re-admission rate was 9.4% in outpatients versus 7.9% in hospitalised patients, resulting in a non-significant hazard ratio of 1.22 (95% CI: 0.64-2.3).

"Of course, this analysis has limitations… you've got the post-hoc design," explained Dr Hendriks, adding "there could be an under-representation of high-risk subgroups. For example, all pregnant patients were excluded." The primary outcomes could therefore be overestimated.

"However, as the YEARS criteria were implemented as standard diagnostic care in the participating centres, the vast majority of all potential PE patients were included in this study."

"[In] conclusion, 43% of all outpatients were treated at home, the rates of adverse events were low, and PE-related re-admission rates did not differ between patients treated at home or in hospital," he summarised. The findings provide a valuable contribution to our limited knowledge of inpatient versus outpatient treatment for acute PE.

Poll loading.

Based on Hendriks S V, Bavalia R et al. Current practice patterns of outpatient management of acute pulmonary embolism: a post-hoc analysis of the YEARS study (abstract OC 14.1). Presented on Sunday 7 July 2019.

Reference:

  1. van der Wall S J, Hendriks S V, Huisman M V, Klok F A. Home treatment of acute pulmonary embolism: state of the art in 2018. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2018;24(5):425-431

Top image: PhonlamaiPhoto

Article image: wbritten

The content and interpretation of these conference highlights are the views and comments of the speakers/authors.

Supported by