Discussion
Right ventricular failure is a concerning complication of massive pulmonary embolism and is seen in 45 % of acute pulmonary embolism patients in varying degrees of severity (3). The mechanisms involved in the development of right ventricular failure in this situation are complex. Central pulmonary emboli that occlude large parts of the pulmonary vasculature mean that the right ventricle must pump against high pulmonary vascular resistance (increased right ventricular afterload). The right ventricle is thin walled and not constructed to withstand acute increases in afterload. When this happens, it leads to reduced right ventricular function and compensatory dilation (Figure 8). Secondary to this, the interventricular septum is pushed toward the left ventricle, causing reduced diastolic filling. This results in reduced cardiac output and coronary hypoperfusion, with secondary ischaemia and further biventricular failure. The ischaemia is exacerbated by hypoxia and the increased oxygen demand of the right ventricle. At the same time, right ventricular dilation causes stretching of the annulus of the tricuspid valve, with secondary tricuspid regurgitation, which also contributes to reduced left ventricular filling. All of this can lead to circulatory decompensation in the form of obstructive shock, and in the worst case to cardiac arrest (2, 3).
Patients with acute pulmonary embolism are stratified by risk into one of four groups based on their risk of short-term mortality. These groups are high risk, intermediate-high risk, intermediate-low risk and low risk. Classification takes place based on the development of haemodynamic instability, cardiac right ventricular function, troponin levels and the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score (3). Short-term survival associated with pulmonary embolism varies widely, with a 30-day mortality ranging from 0 % in the low-risk group up to 24.5 % in the high-risk group (2).
Acute treatment of pulmonary embolism is selected based on risk stratification and ranges from treatment with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to systemic thrombolysis, endovascular or surgical thrombectomy, support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (2). The endovascular treatment options are relatively new as the device has only been on the market for a short time. Most guidelines, including the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on pulmonary embolism (2), still recommend primarily systemic thrombolysis in high-risk patients and predominantly low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with intermediate-high risk. At our hospital, there is scope to consider systemic thrombolysis for the latter patient group in cases with substantial right ventricular dysfunction and compensatory tachycardia.
These ESC guidelines state that percutaneous catheter-based treatment, including catheter-based thrombolysis or thrombectomy, can be considered in high-risk patients in whom thrombolysis has failed or is contraindicated (2). At our hospital, ten catheter-based thrombolysis procedures and ten endovascular thrombectomy procedures have been performed respectively since being started in 2023. The recommendations for endovascular approaches are limited by several factors. The main reason is a lack of safety data and comparative studies with drug treatment, as well as the fact that treatment provision is highly centre- and operator-dependent. Eventually, as the device becomes more widely available and tried and tested, it is likely that more data in this area will be produced, and recommendations may potentially be changed (4). For example, a multicentre, prospective registry study (FLASH) looked at 1000 patients with high and intermediate risk of pulmonary embolism treated with endovascular thrombectomy. The results are promising and demonstrate considerable improvement in right ventricular function and reduced need for supplemental oxygen in the first 48 hours following the procedure. There were no procedure-related deaths (5). Furthermore, a small prospective study from Germany found no serious complications following treatment with thrombectomy with the FlowTriever system in patients with acute pulmonary embolism and diagnosed right ventricular failure (6).
At our hospital, a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) has been established for the rapid multidisciplinary discussion of treatment options for pulmonary embolism patients in intermediate-high and high risk groups. This is in line with the recommendations in the 2019 ESC guidelines on pulmonary embolism (2). Our team consists of a haematologist, cardiologist in the echocardiography division (cardiology specialty registrar at night) and an interventional radiologist.
Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension is a potentially serious long-term complication of pulmonary embolism. The diagnosis can only be made after three months of appropriate anticoagulant therapy (7). Symptoms are persistent dyspnoea, which is particularly noticeable on physical activity, and fatigue. Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension occurs secondary to right ventricular failure due to chronic changes in the pulmonary vasculature with secondary right ventricular hypertrophy and dilation. One of several risk factors for the development of pulmonary hypertension following acute pulmonary embolism is the thrombus or thrombi in the acute phase being large or located centrally (7).
The risk stratification of the patient in this case report was without doubt as a high-risk patient. There was clear consensus on initial treatment with systemic alteplase in accordance with applicable national and international guidelines since there were no contraindications (2). The interventional team responded to a suspected central pulmonary embolism and possible need for catheter-based intervention because experience has found that alteplase may be less effective in long and obstructive thrombi.
Patient's perspective
In the emergency department, I was overwhelmed by how everyone stood ready, organised and drilled to the smallest detail. It was well-organised chaos. I felt I was in the safest hands in the world. After the procedures, I was visited by empathetic and friendly doctors who gave explanations in words I understood and listened to. Tears were shed, it was overwhelming. I know that I could have died on the operating table several times.
I don't know how I can thank you enough.
The decision to perform either surgical or endovascular thrombectomy in a high-risk patient, such as our patient, is more straightforward than in other pulmonary embolism patients since recommendations are given in the guidelines. There is great interest in identifying which patients in the intermediate-high risk group would also benefit more from these treatment options than from conventional drug treatment, both in the short term (survival), but also in the long term in terms of cardiac function and risk of developing chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. There are currently several large studies ongoing to identify these patients, including the PE-TRACT and HI-PEITHO studies (8, 9).