Sarcopenia influences usage of reperfusion treatment in patients with pulmonary embolism aged 75 years and older.

Background: Although pulmonary embolism (PE) and sarcopenia are common diseases, only a few studies have assessed the impact of sarcopenia in PE on usage of reperfusion treatments in PE.
Methods: All hospitalizations of PE patients aged ≥75 years 2005-2020 in Germany were included in this study and stratified for sarcopenia. Impact of sarcopenia on treatment procedures and adverse in-hospital events were investigated.
Results: Overall, 576,364 hospitalizations of PE patients aged ≥75 years (median age 81.0 [78.0-85.0] years; 63.3 % females) were diagnosed in Germany during the observational period 2005-2020. Among these, 2357 (0.4 %) were coded with sarcopenia. PE patients with sarcopenia were in median 2 years older (83.0 [79.0-87.0] vs. 81.0 [78.0-85.0] years, P<0.001) and showed an aggravated comorbidity-profile (Charlson Comorbidity Index 7.00 [5.00-9.00] vs. 6.00 [4.00-7.00], P<0.001). Although signs of hemodynamic compromise such as shock (5.2 % vs. 4.1 %, P=0.005) and tachycardia (4.1 % vs. 2.8 %, P<0.001) were more prevalent in sarcopenic PE patients, systemic thrombolysis (1.9 % vs. 3.5 %, P<0.001) was less often used in these patients. Sarcopenia was independently related to an underuse of systemic thrombolysis (OR 0.537 [95 %CI 0.398-0.725], P<0.001). This underuse might driven by higher rates of bleeding events (gastro-intestinal bleeding: 3.1 % vs. 1.9 %, P<0.001, necessity of transfusion of blood constituents: 18.9 % vs. 11.3 %, P<0.001), but also stroke (5.6 % vs. 3.3 %, P<0.001).
Conclusions: Sarcopenia represents a widely overlooked condition in PE patients. Although sarcopenic PE patients were more often afflicted by hemodynamic compromise, systemic thrombolysis was less often administered. This underuse might be caused by contraindications like bleeding events and stroke.
Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [KK, VHS, CB, OH, ME and TM report no conflict of interests. CEK reports having from Amarin Germany, Amgen GmbH, Bayer Vital, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Leo Pharma, MSD Sharp & Dohme, Novartis Pharma, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH. PL has received institutional fees and research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and ReCor, honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Medical, Innoventric, ReCor and Boehringer Ingelheim and has stock options with Innoventric. SK reports institutional grants and personal lecture/advisory fees from Bayer AG, Daiichi Sankyo, and Boston Scientific; institutional grants from Inari Medical; and personal lecture/advisory fees from MSD and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer. LH received lecture/consultant fees from Johnson&Johson, MSD, Boston Scientific and Inari Medical, outside the submitted work].
(© 2024 The Author(s).)