Search

Background: Clot-in-transit is associated with high mortality, but optimal management strategies remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of different treatment strategies in patients with clot-in-transit., Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients with documented clot-in-transit in the right heart on echocardiography across 2 institutions between January 2020 and October 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or hemodynamic decompensation., Results: Among 35 patients included in the study, 10 patients (28.6%) received anticoagulation alone and 2 patients (5.7%) received systemic thrombolysis, while 23 patients (65.7%) underwent catheter-based therapy (CBT; 22 mechanical thrombectomy and 1 catheter-directed thrombolysis). Over a median follow-up of 30 days, 9 patients (25.7%) experienced the primary composite outcome. Compared with anticoagulation alone, patients who received CBT or systemic thrombolysis had significantly lower rates of the primary composite outcome (12% versus 60%; log-rank P <0.001; hazard ratio, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.03-0.54]; P =0.005) including a lower rate of death (8% versus 50%; hazard ratio, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.02-0.55]; P =0.008), resuscitated cardiac arrest (4% versus 30%; hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01-1.15]; P =0.067), or hemodynamic deterioration (4% versus 30%; hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01-1.15]; P =0.067)., Conclusions: In this study of CBT in patients with clot-in-transit, CBT or systemic thrombolysis was associated with a significantly lower rate of adverse clinical outcomes, including a lower rate of death compared with anticoagulation alone driven by the CBT group. CBT has the potential to improve outcomes. Further large-scale studies are needed to test these associations., Competing Interests: Dr Bangalore is on the Advisory Board of Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, Reata, Inari, and Truvic. The other authors report no conflicts.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) have previously been associated with improved outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PERT utilization, recommendations, and outcomes for patients diagnosed with acute PE changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients with acute PE who received care at an academic hospital system in New York City between March 1st and April 30th, 2020. These patients were compared against historic controls between March 1st and April 30th, 2019. PE severity, PERT utilization, initial management, PERT recommendations, and outcomes were compared. There were more cases of PE during the pandemic (82 vs. 59), but less PERT activations (26.8% vs. 64.4%, p < 0.001) despite similar markers of PE severity. PERT recommendations were similar before and during the pandemic; anticoagulation was most recommended (89.5% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.70). During the pandemic, those with PERT activations were more likely to be female (63.6% vs. 31.7%, p = 0.01), have a history of DVT/PE (22.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.01), and to be SARS-CoV-2 PCR negative (68.2% vs. 38.3% p = 0.02). PERT activation during the pandemic is associated with decreased length of stay (7.7 ± 7.7 vs. 13.2 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.02). PERT utilization decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and its activation was associated with different biases. PERT recommendations and outcomes were similar before and during the pandemic, and led to decreased length of stay during the pandemic.

Non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis in antiphospholipid syndrome presents a management dilemma. Large mobile valvular lesions pose an increased risk of stroke and arterial embolization. However, surgical excision or valve replacement in such patients carries high morbidity and mortality, while anticoagulation alone has limited data. We describe two patients with antiphospholipid syndrome presenting with neurologic events and large non-bacterial aortic valve vegetations. Both patients were successfully managed with anticoagulation and demonstrated rapid dissolution of lesions without evidence of recurrent embolic events. We provide a literature review describing additional cases managed with anticoagulation with dissolution of valvular lesions over time. Our cases further support the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome and non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis in the context of arterial embolization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]