Aims A considerable proportion of patients develop long-term sequelae after an acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Beyond chronic thrombo-embolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), current guidelines provide limited guidance regarding a structured approach for assessment and management of these patients. This study aimed to establish a framework of multidisciplinary follow-up care of PE-survivors. Methods and results A Delphi study was conducted among a multidisciplinary panel of PE specialists from across Europe to gather expert opinions, and where possible reach consensus, on key aspects of PE follow-up care. Two rounds of surveys were distributed among 45 venous thromboembolism (VTE) experts, with 39 completing both rounds. Consensus was reached that follow-up of PE survivors should address the entire spectrum of post-PE sequelae, i.e. CTEPH, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease, but also all other presentations of the post-PE syndrome. Routine assessment at 3 months should involve patient-reported outcome measures, including quality of life. A single, uniform protocol was preferred over locally adapted approaches. Earlier follow-up, prior to the 3-month mark, to detect post-PE sequelae was not considered necessary for most patient subgroups. Right heart catheterization to confirm CTEPH should be reserved for specialized pulmonary hypertension centres, while other diagnostic modalities such as computed tomography, V/Q scan, cardiopulmonary exercise testing and transthoracic echocardiography can be performed in non-referral centres. Conclusion This Delphi study among a panel of VTE experts across Europe describes a consensus-based framework for structured follow-up care for PE-survivors, emphasizing the need for a standardized, multidisciplinary approach to detecting long-term sequelae of PE.

Key elements of follow-up care after acute pulmonary embolism focusing on long-term sequelae: a Delphi study among European experts

Becattini, Cecilia
Membro del Collaboration Group
2025

Abstract

Aims A considerable proportion of patients develop long-term sequelae after an acute pulmonary embolism (PE). Beyond chronic thrombo-embolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), current guidelines provide limited guidance regarding a structured approach for assessment and management of these patients. This study aimed to establish a framework of multidisciplinary follow-up care of PE-survivors. Methods and results A Delphi study was conducted among a multidisciplinary panel of PE specialists from across Europe to gather expert opinions, and where possible reach consensus, on key aspects of PE follow-up care. Two rounds of surveys were distributed among 45 venous thromboembolism (VTE) experts, with 39 completing both rounds. Consensus was reached that follow-up of PE survivors should address the entire spectrum of post-PE sequelae, i.e. CTEPH, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary disease, but also all other presentations of the post-PE syndrome. Routine assessment at 3 months should involve patient-reported outcome measures, including quality of life. A single, uniform protocol was preferred over locally adapted approaches. Earlier follow-up, prior to the 3-month mark, to detect post-PE sequelae was not considered necessary for most patient subgroups. Right heart catheterization to confirm CTEPH should be reserved for specialized pulmonary hypertension centres, while other diagnostic modalities such as computed tomography, V/Q scan, cardiopulmonary exercise testing and transthoracic echocardiography can be performed in non-referral centres. Conclusion This Delphi study among a panel of VTE experts across Europe describes a consensus-based framework for structured follow-up care for PE-survivors, emphasizing the need for a standardized, multidisciplinary approach to detecting long-term sequelae of PE.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11391/1622518
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact