The aim of this study is to compare the Hestia rule vs. the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) for home treatment. Normotensive patients with PE of 26 hospitals from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were randomized to either triaging with Hestia or sPESI. They were designated for home treatment if the triaging tool was negative and if the physician-in-charge, taking into account the patient’s opinion, did not consider that hospitalization was required. The main outcomes were the 30-day composite of recurrent venous thrombo-embolism, major bleeding or all-cause death (non-inferiority analysis with 2.5% absolute risk difference as margin), and the rate of patients discharged home within 24 h after randomization (NCT02811237). From January 2017 through July 2019, 1975 patients were included. In the per-protocol population, the primary outcome occurred in 3.82% (34/891) in the Hestia arm and 3.57% (32/896) in the sPESI arm (P = 0.004 for non-inferiority). In the intention-to-treat population, 38.4% of the Hestia patients (378/984) were treated at home vs. 36.6% (361/986) of the sPESI patients (P = 0.41 for superiority), with a 30-day composite outcome rate of 1.33% (5/375) and 1.11% (4/359), respectively. No recurrent or fatal PE occurred in either home treatment arm. For triaging PE patients, the strategy based on the Hestia rule and the strategy based on sPESI had similar safety and effectiveness. With either tool complemented by the overruling of the physician-in-charge, more than a third of patients were treated at home with a low incidence of complications. The international randomized HOME-PE study demonstrates that, for triaging patients with acute pulmonary embolism for home treatment, the Hestia rule and the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index, complemented by the physician's overruling, are equally safe and efficient.

Recently, validated clinical decision rules have been developed that avoid unnecessary use of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). To measure any resulting change in CTPA use for suspected PE. Retrospective analysis. 26 European EDs in 6 countries. Patients with CTPA performed for suspected PE in the ED during the first 7 days of each odd month between January 2015 and December 2019. The primary end points were the CTPAs done for suspected PE in the ED and the number of PEs diagnosed in the ED each year adjusted to an annual census of 100 000 ED visits. Temporal trends were estimated using generalized linear mixed regression models. 8970 CTPAs were included (median age, 63 years; 56% female). Statistically significant temporal trends for more frequent use of CTPA (836 per 100 000 ED visits in 2015 vs. 1112 in 2019; P < 0.001), more diagnosed PEs (138 per 100 000 in 2015 vs. 164 in 2019; P = 0.028), a higher proportion of low-risk PEs (annual percent change [APC], 13.8% [95% CI, 2.6% to 30.1%]) with more ambulatory management (APC, 19.3% [CI, 4.1% to 45.1%]), and a lower proportion of intensive care unit admissions (APC, -8.9% [CI, -17.1% to -0.3%]) were observed. Data were limited to 7 days every 2 months. Despite the recent validation of clinical decision rules to limit the use of CTPA, an increase in the CTPA rate along with more diagnosed PEs and especially low-risk PEs were instead observed. None specific for this study.

This review examines the recent progress in the initial management of pulmonary embolism (PE). Diagnostic strategies allowing the safe decrease of imaging testing have been proposed. New modalities of catheter-based interventions have emerged for hemodynamically unstable PE patients. For normotensive PE patients, direct oral anticoagulant treatment has become the new norm and a large proportion of patients are eligible for home treatment.

Background: Lower limb trauma requiring immobilization is a significant contributor to overall venous thromboembolism (VTE) burden. The clinical effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for this indication and the optimal agent strategy are still a matter of debate. Our main objective was to assess the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients with isolated temporary lower limb immobilization after trauma. We aimed to estimate and compare the clinical efficacy and the safety of the different thromboprophylactic treatments to determine the best strategy. Methods and findings: We conducted a systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) including all available randomized trials comparing a pharmacological thromboprophylactic treatment to placebo or to no treatment in patients with leg immobilization after trauma. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science until July 2021. Only RCT or observational studies with analysis of confounding factors including adult patients requiring temporary immobilization for an isolated lower limb injury treated conservatively or surgically and assessing pharmacological thromboprophylactic agents or placebo or no treatment were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major VTE (proximal deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic VTE, and pulmonary embolism-related death). We extracted data according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for NMA and appraised selected trials with the Cochrane review handbook. Fourteen studies were included (8,198 patients). Compared to the control group, rivaroxaban, fondaparinux, and low molecular weight heparins were associated with a significant risk reduction of major VTE with an odds ratio of 0.02 (95% credible interval (CrI) 0.00 to 0.19), 0.22 (95% CrI 0.06 to 0.65), and 0.32 (95% CrI 0.15 to 0.56), respectively. No increase of the major bleeding risk was observed with either treatment. Rivaroxaban has the highest likelihood of being ranked top in terms of efficacy and net clinical benefit. The main limitation is that the network had as many indirect comparisons as direct comparisons. Conclusions: This NMA confirms the favorable benefit/risk ratio of thromboprophylaxis for patients with leg immobilization after trauma with the highest level of evidence for rivaroxaban. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42021257669.

Thromboprophylaxis for patients with non-surgical isolated lower-limb trauma requiring immobilization is a matter of debate. Our aim was to develop and validate a clinical risk- stratification model based on Trauma, Immobilization and Patients’ characteristics (the TIP score). The TIP score criteria and the cut-off were selected by a consensus of international experts (n = 27) using the Delphi method. Retrospective validation was performed in a population-based case-control study (MEGA study). The potential score’s impact in anticoagulant treatment was assessed in a prospective single-center observational cohort study. After four successive rounds, 30 items constituting the TIP score were selected: thirteen items for trauma, three for immobilization and 14 for patient characteristics were selected, each rated on a scale of 1 to 3. In the validation database, the TIP score had an AUC of 0·77 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.85). Using the cut-off proposed by the experts (≥5) and assuming a prevalence of 1·8%, the TIP scores had a sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive values of 89·9%, 30·7% and 99·4% respectively. In the prospective cohort, 84·2% (165/196) of all the patients concerned who presented at the emergency department had a low VTE risk not requiring thromboprophylaxis according to their TIP scores. The 3-month rate of symptomatic VTE was 1/196 [95% CI 0.1–2.8] this patient was in the sub-group TIP score ≥5. For patients with non-surgical lower-limb trauma and orthopedic immobilization, the TIP score allows an individual VTE risk-assessment and shows promising results in guiding thromboprophylaxis.