(1) Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third most frequent acute cardiovascular condition worldwide. PE response teams (PERTs) have been created to facilitate treatment implementation in PE patients. Here, we report on the 5-year experience of PERT operating in Warsaw, Poland, with regard to the characteristics and outcomes of the consulted patients. (2) Methods: Patients diagnosed with PE between September 2017 and December 2021 were included in the study. Clinical and treatment data were obtained from medical records. Patient outcomes were assessed in-hospital, at a 1- and 12-month follow-up. (3) Results: There were 235 PERT activations. The risk of early mortality was low in 51 patients (21.8%), intermediate–low in 83 (35.3%), intermediate–high in 80 (34.0%) and high in 21 (8.9%) patients. Anticoagulation alone was the most frequently administered treatment in all patient subgroups (altogether 84.7%). Systemic thrombolysis (47.6%) and interventional therapy (52%) were the prevailing treatment options in high-risk patients. The in-hospital mortality was 6.4%. The adverse events during 1-year follow-up included five deaths, two recurrent VTE and two minor bleeding events. (4) Conclusions: Our initial 5-year experience showed that the activity of the local PERT facilitated patient-tailored decision making and the access to advanced therapies, with subsequent low overall mortality and treatment complication rates, confirming the benefits of PERT implementation.

Since December 2019, the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has remained a challenge for governments and healthcare systems all around the globe. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with increased rates of hospital admissions and significant mortality. The pandemic increased the rate of cardiac arrest and the need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). COVID-19, with its pathophysiology and detrimental effects on healthcare, influenced the profile of patients suffering from cardiac arrest, as well as the conditions of performing CPR. To ensure both the safety of medical personnel and the CPR efficacy for patients, resuscitation societies have published modified guidelines addressing the specific reality of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this review, we briefly describe the transmission and pathophysiology of COVID-19, present the challenges of CPR in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, summarize the current recommendations regarding the algorithms of basic life support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS) and pediatric life support, and discuss other aspects of CPR in COVID-19 patients, which potentially affect the risk-to-benefit ratio of medical procedures and therefore should be considered while formulating further recommendations.

Background: Increased resting heart rate (RHR) after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common observation, possibly resulting from ganglionated plexus modification during ablation. Previous trials have suggested that an increase in RHR after ablation might be related to higher efficacy of the procedure. The aim of this study was to determine whether or not higher increase in RHR after radiofrequency (RF) PVI might predict better long-term outcome of the procedure in a real-life cohort of patients in whom index ablation for paroxysmal AF was performed. Material and methods: The health records of patients who underwent index point-by-point or drag lesion RF PVI for paroxysmal AF in our department between January 2014 and November 2018 were analyzed. Resting heart rate (RHR) was determined from 12-lead ECG recorded prior to the ablation and before discharge to evaluate changes in RHR after PVI. Only patients in sinus rhythm before the procedure and at discharge were included in the analysis. Telephone follow-up was collected for evaluation of arrhythmia recurrence status. Results: A total of 146 patients who underwent PVI for paroxysmal AF were included. Mean follow-up time was 3.5 years. RHR increased from 64 [58.5–70], prior to procedure, to 72 [64.25–80] bpm at discharge (p < 0.001). Higher increase in RHR was not protective from arrhythmia recurrence in long-term observation in both univariable HR = 1.001 (CI 0.99–1.017, p = 0.857) and multivariable analyses HR = 1.001 (CI 0.99–1.02, p = 0.84). Conclusions: RHR after PVI increased in comparison to baseline in our cohort. However, we did not observe higher increase in RHR to be associated with more favorable long-term effectiveness of the procedure.