International Survey of Thrombolytic Use for Treatment of Cardiac Arrest Due to Massive Pulmonary Embolism
| Autor: | Megan A. Rech, Drayton A. Hammond, Megan A. Van Berkel, Sarah Peppard, Michelle Horng, Jenna M. Holzhausen, Sarah Sokol |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
pulmonary embolism business.industry education massive pulmonary embolism Psychological intervention International survey Survey research cardiac arrest General Medicine Odds ratio Guideline Logistic regression medicine.disease Pulmonary embolism thrombolytic Emergency medicine ComputingMethodologies_DOCUMENTANDTEXTPROCESSING Medicine Thrombolytic Agent Original Clinical Report business |
| Zdroj: | Critical Care Explorations |
| ISSN: | 2639-8028 |
| DOI: | 10.1097/cce.0000000000000132 |
| Popis: | Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. Objectives: This survey sought to characterize the national prescribing patterns and barriers to the use of thrombolytic agents in the treatment of pulmonary embolism, with a specific focus on treatment during actual or imminent cardiac arrest. Design: A 19-question international, cross-sectional survey on thrombolytic use in pulmonary embolism was developed, validated, and administered. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine factors predictive of utilization of thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to pulmonary embolism. Setting: International survey study. Subjects: Physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals who were members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Thrombolytic users were compared with nonusers. Respondents (n = 272) predominately were physicians (62.1%) or pharmacists (30.5%) practicing in an academic medical center (54.8%) or community teaching setting (24.6%). Thrombolytic users (n = 177; 66.8%) were compared with nonusers (n = 88; 33.2%) Thrombolytic users were more likely to work in pulmonary/critical care (80.2% thrombolytic use vs 59.8%; p < 0.01) and emergency medicine (6.8% vs 3.5%; p < 0.01). Users were more likely to have an institutional guideline or policy in place pertaining to the use of thrombolytics in cardiac arrest (27.8% vs 13.6%; p < 0.01) or have a pulmonary embolism response team (38.6% vs 19.3%; p < 0.01). Lack of evidence supporting use and the risk of adverse outcomes were barriers to thrombolytic use. Working in a pulmonary/critical care environment (odds ratio, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.24–4.52) and comfort level (odds ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.7–4.53) were predictive of thrombolytic use in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Most survey respondents used thrombolytics in the setting of cardiac arrest secondary to known or suspected pulmonary embolism. This survey study adds important data to the literature surrounding thrombolytics for pulmonary embolism as it describes thrombolytic user characteristic, barriers to use, and common prescribing practices internationally. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|