HomeCirculationVol. 123, No. 16Management of Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism, Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis, and Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBManagement of Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism, Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis, and Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary HypertensionA Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Michael R. Jaff, M. Sean McMurtry, Stephen L. Archer, Mary Cushman, Neil Goldenberg, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, J. Stephen Jenkins, Jeffrey A. Kline, Andrew D. Michaels, Patricia Thistlethwaite, Suresh Vedantham, R. James White, Brenda K. Zierler and Michael R. JaffMichael R. Jaff Search for more papers by this author , M. Sean McMurtryM. Sean McMurtry Search for more papers by this author , Stephen L. ArcherStephen L. Archer Search for more papers by this author , Mary CushmanMary Cushman Search for more papers by this author , Neil GoldenbergNeil Goldenberg Search for more papers by this author , Samuel Z. GoldhaberSamuel Z. Goldhaber Search for more papers by this author , J. Stephen JenkinsJ. Stephen Jenkins Search for more papers by this author , Jeffrey A. KlineJeffrey A. Kline Search for more papers by this author , Andrew D. MichaelsAndrew D. Michaels Search for more papers by this author , Patricia ThistlethwaitePatricia Thistlethwaite Search for more papers by this author , Suresh VedanthamSuresh Vedantham Search for more papers by this author , R. James WhiteR. James White Search for more papers by this author , Brenda K. ZierlerBrenda K. Zierler Search for more papers by this author and Search for more papers by this author and on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation, Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, and Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology Originally published21 Mar 2011https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e318214914fCirculation. 2011;123:1788–1830is corrected byCorrectionCorrectionOther version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 1, 2011: Previous Version 1 Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is responsible for the hospitalization of >250 000 Americans annually and represents a significant risk for morbidity and mortality.1 Despite the publication of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to aid in the management of VTE in its acute and chronic forms,2,3 the clinician is frequently confronted with manifestations of VTE for which data are sparse and optimal management is unclear. In particular, the optimal use of advanced therapies for acute VTE, including thrombolysis and catheter-based therapies, remains uncertain. This report addresses the management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism (PE), iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis (IFDVT), and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). The goal is to provide practical advice to enable the busy clinician to optimize the management of patients with these severe manifestations of VTE. Although this document makes recommendations for management, optimal medical decisions must incorporate other factors, including patient wishes, quality of life, and life expectancy based on age and comorbidities. The appropriateness of these recommendations for a specific patient may vary depending on these factors and will be best judged by the bedside clinician.MethodsA writing group was established with representation from the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease and Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation of the American Heart Association and vetted by American Heart Association leadership. All writing group members were required to disclose all relationships with industry and other entities relevant to the subject. The writing group was subdivided into the 3 areas of statement focus, and each subgroup was led by a member with content expertise (deep venous thrombosis [S.V.], pulmonary embolism [S.Z.G.], and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension [P.A.T.]). The writing groups systematically reviewed and summarized the relevant published literature and incorporated this information into a manuscript with draft recommendations. Differences in opinion were dealt with through a face-to-face meeting and subsequently through electronic and telephone communications. The final document reflects the consensus opinion of the entire committee. Areas of uncertainty are also noted in hopes that both basic and clinical research will advance knowledge in this area. The American Heart Association Levels of Evidence were adopted (Table 1 ). External reviewers appointed by the American Heart Association independently reviewed the document. Each recommendation required a confidential vote by the writing group members after external review of the document. Any writing group member with a relationship with industry relevant to the recommendation was recused from the voting on that recommendation. Disclosure of relationships is included in this document (Writing Group Disclosure Table).Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of EvidenceTable 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence*Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as gender, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials. Even though randomized trials are not available, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective.†For recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only) regarding the comparative effectiveness of one treatment with respect to another, these words or phrases may be accompanied by the additional terms “in preference to” or “to choose” to indicate the favored intervention. For example, “Treatment A is recommended in preference to Treatment B for …” or “It is reasonable to choose Treatment A over Treatment B for ….” Studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.Massive, Submassive, and Low-Risk PEMassive PEOutcomes in acute PE vary substantially depending on patient characteristics.4,5 To tailor medical and interventional therapies for PE to the appropriate patients, definitions for subgroups of PE are required. The qualifiers “massive,” “submassive,” and “nonmassive” are often encountered in the literature, although their definitions are vague, vary, and lead to ambiguity.6 Although it is attractive to stratify types of acute PE on the basis of the absolute incidence of complications such as mortality, this approach is complicated by comorbidities; for example, a nonmassive acute PE might be associated with a high risk for complications in a patient with many comorbidities,7 such as obstructive airway disease or congestive heart failure. Massive PE traditionally has been defined on the basis of angiographic burden of emboli by use of the Miller Index,8 but this definition is of limited use. Registry data support the assertion that hypotension and circulatory arrest are associated with increased short-term mortality in acute PE. In the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER), the 90-day mortality rate for patients with acute PE and systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg at presentation (108 patients) was 52.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 43.3% to 62.1%) versus 14.7% (95% CI 13.3% to 16.2%) in the remainder of the cohort.9 Similarly, in the Germany-based Management Strategy and Prognosis of Pulmonary Embolism Registry (MAPPET) of 1001 patients with acute PE, in-hospital mortality was 8.1% for hemodynamically stable patients versus 25% for those presenting with cardiogenic shock and 65% for those requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation.10 Both the Geneva and Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) clinical scores identify hypotension (blood pressure <100 mm Hg) as a significant predictor of adverse prognosis.7,11We propose the following definition for massive PE: Acute PE with sustained hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg for at least 15 minutes or requiring inotropic support, not due to a cause other than PE, such as arrhythmia, hypovolemia, sepsis, or left ventricular [LV] dysfunction), pulselessness, or persistent profound bradycardia (heart rate <40 bpm with signs or symptoms of shock).Submassive PESeveral techniques have been used to identify subjects at increased risk for adverse short-term outcomes in acute PE (Table 2). These data are based on series of adult patients; there are limited data for prognosis of PE for pediatric patients.Table 2. Studies of Prognosis in Acute PEStudies by Type of Variable Tested and First AuthorYear PublishedNo. of SubjectsIncluded SubjectsVariable(s) TestedOutcomeEffectClinical scores Wicki112000296Acute PEGeneva scoreDeath, recurrent VTE, or major bleeding at 3 moOR 15.7 for high risk vs low risk (95% CI not reported) Nendaz122004199Acute PEGeneva scoreDeath, recurrent VTE, or major bleeding at 3 moOR 7.2 for high risk vs low risk (95% CI not reported) Aujesky7200515 531Acute PEPESI clinical score30-d mortalityOR 29.2 for class V vs I (95% CI not reported) Uresandi132007681Outpatients with acute PESpanish clinical scoreDeath, recurrent VTE, or major/minor bleeding at 10 dOR 4.7 for high risk vs low risk (95% CI not reported) Jiménez142007599Acute PEPESI and Geneva scores30-d mortalityOR 4.5 for PESI class V, OR 3.1 for Geneva high risk (95% CI not reported) Donzé152008357Acute PEPESI clinical score90-d mortalityOR 12.4 for PESI class III–V vs I–II (95% CI not reported) Choi16200990Acute PEPESI clinical score30-d mortalityOR 19.8 for PESI class V vs PESI I Ruíz-Giménez17200813 057Acute PEBleeding risk scoreMajor bleeding at 3 moLR 2.96 (95% CI 2.18–4.02) for high riskEchocardiography Ribeiro181997126Acute PEModerate-severe RV systolic dysfunction on echoIn-hospital mortalityOR ∞ (no deaths observed with normal RV function) Goldhaber419992454Acute PERV hypokinesis on echo (in addition to age >70 y, cancer, CHF, COPD, hypotension, and tachypnea)All-cause mortality at 3 moHR 2.0 (95% CI 1.2–3.2) for RV hypokinesis Grifoni52000209Acute PE≥1 of RV dilation (EDD >30 mm or RVEDD/LVEDD ratio >1 in apical 4-chamber view), paradoxical septal motion, or RVSP >30 mm HgIn-hospital all-cause mortalityOR 4.7 (95% CI not reported) Vieillard-Baron192001161“Massive” PE defined as at least 2 lobar PAs occludedRVEDA/LVEDA >0.6 on echoIn-hospital all-cause mortalityNS in multivariate model Kucher2020051035Acute PE with systolic BP >90 mm HgRV hypokinesis on echo30-d mortalityHR 1.94 (95% CI 1.23–3.06) Jiang21200757“Normotensive” acute PERV dilation, PASP >30 mm Hg, TR jet velocity >2.8 m/sIn-hospital mortalityOR 5.6 (95% CI not reported) Frémont222008950Acute PERVEDD/LVEDD ≥0.9In-hospital mortalityOR 2.66, P=0.01 (95% CI not reported) Kjaergaard232009283“Nonmassive” acute PEPA acceleration timeAll-cause mortality at 1 yHR 0.89 (95% CI 0.83–0.97)CT scan Araoz242003173Acute PERV/LV diameter ratio, ventricular septal bowing, clot burdenIn-hospital mortalityAll variables NS Quiroz25200463Acute PERVD/LVD >0.9 (reconstructed 2- and 4-chamber views studied)Adverse events (30-d mortality, CPR, ventilation, pressors, thrombolysis, or embolectomy)OR 4.02 (95% CI 1.06 to 15.19) for RVD/LVD >0.9 in 4-chamber view Schoepf262004431Acute PERVD/LVD >0.9 in reconstructed 4-chamber view30-d mortalityHR 5.17 (95% CI 1.63–16.35) Ghuysen27200582Acute PERVD/LVD >1.46In-hospital mortalityOR 5.0 (95% CI not reported) van der Meer282005120Acute PERVD/LVD >1.0 in short-axis viewMortality at 3 moHazard not reported, but negative predictive value was 100% (95% CI 93.4–100) Araoz2920071193Acute PEVentricular septal bowing, RVD/LVD, clot burden30-d mortalityNo consistent predictor variable Subramaniam302008523Acute PEClot burden and electrocardiography scoreAll-cause mortality at 1 yNS for both Findik31200833Massive acute PE (systolic BP <90 mm Hg)RV dysfunction, main PA diameter, ventricular septal shape, clot burdenIn-hospital mortalityNS for all variables Stein32200876Acute PERVD/LVD >1 (in transverse images)In-hospital mortalityNo in-hospital mortality observed Nural33200985Acute PERVD/LVD in short axis, RVD (short axis), ventricular septal shape, SVC diameterIn-hospital mortalityRVD OR 1.24 (95% CI 1.04–1.48); Note: threshold not specifiedNatriuretic peptides Kucher34200373Acute PEBNP >90 pg/mLAdverse events (death or CPR, ventilation, pressors, thrombolysis, or embolectomy)OR 8.0 (95% CI 1.3–50.1) ten Wolde352003110Acute PEBNP >21.7 pg/mLAll-cause mortality at 3 moOR 9.4 (95% CI 1.8–49.2) Krüger36200450Acute PEBNP >90 pg/mLRV dysfunction, in-hospital mortalityOR 28.4 (95% CI 3.22–251.12) for RV dysfunction, but NS for in-hospital mortality Pieralli37200661Normotensive acute PEBNP >487 pg/mLPE-related deterioration or deathOR ∞, no events were observed for BNP <487 pg/mL Ray38200651Acute PEBNP >200 pg/mLICU admission or deathOR 3.8 (95% CI not reported) Kucher39200373Acute PEproBNP >500 pg/mLAdverse events (death or CPR, ventilation, pressors, thrombolysis, or embolectomy)OR 14.6 (95% CI 1.5–139.0) Pruszczyk40200379Acute PENT-proBNP >600 pg/mLIn-hospital death or serious adverse eventsOR 1.89 (95% CI 1.12–3.20) Kostrubiec412007113Acute PENT-proBNP >7500 ng/L on admission30-d mortalityOR 13.9 (95% CI not reported) Alonso-Martínez42200993Acute PEpro-BNP >500 ng/L30-d mortalityOR 1.03 (95% CI 1.01–1.05)Troponin Giannitsis43200056Acute PETroponin T ≥0.1 μg/LIn-hospital mortalityOR 29.6 (95% CI 3.3–265.3) Janata442003136Acute PETroponin T ≥0.09 ng/mLIn-hospital mortalityOR 46.0 (95% CI not reported) Bova45200560Normotensive acute PETroponin T ≥0.01 ng/mLIn-hospital mortalityOR 9 (95% CI not reported) Post462009192Acute PETroponin T ≥0.1 ng/mL30-d mortalityOR 11.6 (95% CI not reported) Konstantinides472002106Acute PETroponin T ≥0.1 ng/mL, troponin I ≥1.5 ng/mLIn-hospital mortalityOR 6.50 (95% CI 1.11–38.15; troponin T), OR 16.91 (95% CI 1.61–177.69; troponin I) Douketis48200224“Submassive” acute PE, defined as acute PE with systolic BP >90 mm HgTroponin I >0.4 μg/LHypotension, clinical RV failureOR not reported, but 1/5 with troponin I >0.4 μg/L had hypotension Mehta49200338Acute PETroponin I >0.4 ng/mLSubsequent cardiogenic shockOR 8.8 (95% CI 2.5–21.0) La Vecchia50200448Acute PETroponin I >0.6 ng/mLIn-hospital mortalityOR 12 (95% CI not reported) Douketis512005458“Submassive” acute PE, defined as acute PE with systolic BP >90 mm HgTroponin I >0.5 μg/LAll-cause death (time point not specified)OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.0–11.9) Amorim52200677Acute PETroponin I >0.10 ng/mLProximal PA emboliOR 12.0 (95% CI 1.6–88.7) Aksay53200777Acute PETroponin I >0.5 ng/mLIn-hospital mortalityOR 3.31 (95% CI 1.82–9.29) Gallotta54200890Normotensive acute PETroponin I >0.03 μg/LHemodynamic instability, in-hospital mortalityHR 9.8 (95% CI 1.2–79.2; for hemodynamic instability), NS for in-hospital mortality Alonso Martínez552009164Acute PETroponin I >0.5 μg/LIn-hospital mortalityNSHybrid studies Kucher34200373Acute PEBNP >90 pg/mL, troponin T >0.01 ng/mLAdverse events (death or CPR, ventilation, pressors, thrombolysis, or embolectomy)OR 8.0 (95% CI 1.3–50.1; for BNP), OR 4.3 (95% CI 0.8–24.1; for troponin T, that is, NS) Kostrubiec562005100Normotensive acute PENT-proBNP >600 ng/mL, troponin T >0.07 μg/LAll-cause mortality within 40 dHR 6.5 (95% CI 2.2–18.9; for troponin T) NS for NT-proBNP in multivariate model Scridon572005141Acute PETroponin I >0.10 μg/L, echo RVD/LVD >0.9 on apical 4-chamber view30-d mortalityHR 7.17 (95% CI 1.6–31.9) for both tests positive Binder582005124Acute PENT-proBNP >1000 pg/mL, RV dysfunction on echo, troponin T >0.04 ng/mLIn-hospital death or complicationsHR 12.16 (95% CI 2.45–60.29) for both NT-proBNP and echo positive, HR 10.00 (95% CI 2.14–46.80) for both troponin T and echo positive Pieralli37200661Normotensive acute PEBNP >487 pg/mL, RV dysfunction on echoIn-hospital death or clinical deteriorationOR ∞ for BNP (no events seen for BNP <487 pg/mL), OR ∞ for RV dysfunction on echo (no events seen with no RV dysfunction) Kline592006181Acute PE with systolic BP >100 mm HgPanel of pulse oximetry, 12-lead ECG, and troponin T, as well as RV dysfunction on echoIn-hospital circulatory shock or intubation, or death, recurrent PE, or severe cardiopulmonary disabilityOR 4.0 for panel (95% CI not reported), OR 2.1 for RV dysfunction on echo (95% CI not reported) Hsu602006110Acute PETroponin I 0.4 ng/mL, RVD/LVD >1 on echoMortality at 1 yHR 2.584 (95% CI 1.451–4.602) Logeart61200767Normotensive acute PETroponin I >0.10 μg/mL, BNP >200 pg/mLRV dysfunction on echoOR 9.3 for troponin I, OR 32.7 for BNP (95% CIs not reported) Maziere62200760Acute PETroponin I >0.20 μg/mL, BNP >1000 pg/mLIn-hospital death, CPR, ventilation, pressors, thrombolytic, embolectomy, or ICU admissionOR 10.8 for troponin I, OR 3.4 for BNP (95% CIs not reported) Zhu63200790Acute PETroponin I >0.11 ng/mL, RV dysfunction on echo (RVD/LVD >0.65 in parasternal long-axis view)14-d death, pressors, intubation, or CPROR 11.4 for troponin I, OR 10.5 for RVD/LVD >0.65 (95% CIs not reported) Tulevski64200728Normotensive acute PEBNP >10 pmol/L, troponin T >0.010 ng/mLIn-hospital deathOR ∞ for BNP and troponin T positive (no events observed with negative BNP or troponin T) Kline652008152Acute PE, systolic BP >100 mm HgBNP >100 pg/mL, troponin I >0.1 ng/mLMortality at 6 moHR 2.74 (95% CI 1.07–6.96; for BNP) HR 1.41 (95% CI 0.54–3.61; for troponin I, ie, NS) Palmieri66200889Normotensive acute PEPESI clinical score IV–V, troponin T >0.10 μg/L, RV dysfunction on echo (RV area/LV area >0.9 in apical 4-chamber viewIn-hospital deathOR 2.6 (95% CI 1.2–5.9; for PESI IV–V); NS for both troponin T and RV dysfunction on echo in multivariate model Gallotta54200890Normotensive acute PETroponin I >0.03 μg/L, RV dysfunction on echoIn-hospital deathTroponin I as continuous variable: Adjusted LR 2.2/μg/L (95% CI 1.1–4.3) Toosi672008159Acute PEShock Index >1, multiple echo parametersIn-hospital deathShock Index >1 independently predictive, but OR not reported Jiménez682008318Normotensive acute PETroponin I >0.1 ng/mL, PESI clinical score V30-d mortalityOR 1.4 (95% CI 0.6–3.3; for Troponin I, ie NS) OR 11.1 (95% CI 1.5–83.6; for PESI score of V) Subramaniam302008523Acute PEElectrocardiography score, clot burden on CTMortality at 1 yNS for both variables Bova692009201Normotensive acute PERV dysfunction on echo (RVD/LVD on apical view >1), troponin I >0.07 ng/mL, BNP >100 pg/mL, Geneva score ≥3, Pao2 <60 mm Hg on room air, D-dimer >3 mg/LIn-hospital death or clinical deteriorationHR 7.4 (95% CI 1.2–46.0; Geneva score ≥3) HR 12.1 (95% CI 1.3–112.0; troponin I) All other variables NS on multivariable analysis Vuilleumier702009146Normotensive acute PETroponin I >0.09 ng/mL, NT-proBNP >300 pg/mL, myoglobin >70 ng/mL, H-FABP >6 ng/mL, D-dimer >2000 ng/mLDeath or recurrent VTE or bleeding at 3 moUnivariate: OR 15.8 (95% CI 21.1–122; NT-proBNP); OR 4.7 (95% CI 1.5–14.8; H-FABP); OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2–9.7; troponin I); OR 8.0 (95% CI 1.1–64.5; D-dimer); OR 3.4 (95% CI 0.9–12.2; myoglobin); Multivariate: Only NT-proBNP significant, but OR not reportedPE indicates pulmonary embolism; VTE, venous thromboembolism; mo, month(s); OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; PESI, pulmonary embolism severity index; LR, likelihood ratio; RV, right ventricular; echo, echocardiography; CHF, congestive heart failure; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HR, hazard ratio; EDD, end-diastolic diameter; RVEDD, right ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVEDD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; RVSP, right ventricular systolic pressure; RVEDA, right ventricular end-diastolic area; LVEDA, left ventricular end-diastolic area; NS, not significant; PA, pulmonary artery; BP, blood pressure; PASP, pulmonary artery systolic pressure; TR, tricuspid regurgitant; CT, computed tomography; LV, left ventricular; RVD, right ventricular diameter; LVD, left ventricular diameter; CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation; ECG, electrocardiogram; BNP, brain natriuretic peptide; SVC, superior vena cava; ICU, intensive care unit; proBNP, pro-brain natriuretic peptide; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; and H-FABP, heart-type fatty acid–binding protein.Clinical ScoresRegistry data support the idea that clinical features, including age and comorbidities, influence prognosis in acute PE.4,5,71 These features have been incorporated into clinical scores to estimate prognosis,7,11–17,72,73 including the Geneva and PESI scores.7,11 Clinical scores do predict adverse outcomes in acute PE independent of imaging or biomarkers.69EchocardiographyEchocardiography identifies patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes from acute PE in many studies,4,5,18–23,74–81 although there is diversity in criteria for right ventricular (RV) dysfunction on echocardiography. Sanchez et al82 performed a (selective) meta-analysis and calculated an odds ratio for short-term mortality for RV dysfunction on echocardiography (defined variably; Table 2) of 2.53 (95% CI 1.17 to 5.50).Computed Tomographic (CT) ScanCT scan measurements of RV dilation predict adverse short-term events,25,33 including in-hospital death,27 30-day mortality,26 and mortality at 3 months.28 The criterion for RV dilation has varied among studies; an RV diameter divided by LV diameter >0.9 in a 4-chamber view was used by Quiroz et al25 and Schoepf et al.26 Results from 1 large cohort of 1193 patients suggested that ventricular septal bowing was predictive of short-term mortality but that the ratio of RV diameter to LV diameter was not.29 This same group found that RV diameter divided by LV diameter was predictive of other adverse outcomes, including admission to an intensive care unit.24 An additional study did not support RV dilation as being predictive of adverse prognosis, although a 4-chamber view was not used.32 Clot burden measured by CT angiography does not predict adverse prognosis.30Elevated TroponinsElevated troponins, including troponin I and troponin T, are associated with adverse prognosis in acute PE.43–55,83,84 Becattini et al85 summarized the literature in a meta-analysis and demonstrated that in submassive PE, troponin elevations had an odds ratio for mortality of 5.90 (95% CI 2.68 to 12.95).Elevated Natriuretic PeptidesElevated natriuretic peptides, including brain natriuretic peptide (BNP)34–38,86 and N-terminal pro-BNP,39–42 have been shown to be predictive of adverse short-term outcomes in acute PE. In the meta-analysis by Sanchez et al,82 the odds ratios for short-term mortality for BNP or N-terminal pro-BNP elevations in patients with submassive PE were 9.51 (95% CI 3.16 to 28.64) and 5.74 (95% CI 2.18 to 15.13), respectively. Cavallazzi et al87 and Klok et al88 also showed that BNP and N-terminal pro-BNP elevations were predictive of mortality. Other novel biomarkers, including D-dimer and heart-type fatty acid–binding protein, also have prognostic value.89–92ElectrocardiographyElectrocardiography helps identify patients at risk of adverse outcomes in acute PE. Abnormalities reported with acute PE include sinus tachycardia, atrial arrhythmias, low voltage, Q waves in leads III and aVF (pseudoinfarction), S1Q3T3 pattern, Qr pattern in V1, P pulmonale, right-axis deviation, ST-segment elevation, ST-segment depression, QT prolongation, and incomplete or complete right bundle-branch block.30,93–110 Of these, sinus tachycardia, new-onset atrial arrhythmias, new right bundle-branch block (complete or incomplete), Qr pattern in V1, S1Q3T3, negative T waves in V1 through V4, and ST-segment shift over V1 through V4 have been shown to correlate with worse short-term prognosis in acute PE.101–104,106–110Hybrid StudiesHybrid studies, which involve multiple prognostic variables,14,30,37,54,56–70,111–113 demonstrate that combinations of RV dysfunction, elevated natriuretic peptides, or elevated troponin are markers of adverse prognosis. Although the techniques described above have utility for predicting prognosis in acute PE, clinical judgment is required to determine which of these is appropriate for an individual patient.We propose the following definition for submassive PE: Acute PE without systemic hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg) but with either RV dysfunction or myocardial necrosis.RV dysfunction means the presence of at least 1 of the following: —RV dilation (apical 4-chamber RV diameter divided by LV diameter >0.9) or RV systolic dysfunction on echocardiography—RV dilation (4-chamber RV diameter divided by LV diameter >0.9) on CT—Elevation of BNP (>90 pg/mL)—Elevation of N-terminal pro-BNP (>500 pg/mL); or—Electrocardiographic changes (new complete or incomplete right bundle-branch block, anteroseptal ST elevation or depression, or anteroseptal T-wave inversion)Myocardial necrosis is defined as either of the following: —Elevation of troponin I (>0.4 ng/mL) or—Elevation of troponin T (>0.1 ng/mL)Low-Risk PEThe literature summarized in Table 2 demonstrates that patients with the lowest short-term mortality in acute PE are those who are normotensive with normal biomarker levels and no RV dysfunction on imaging. Recent cohorts in which these parameters have been evaluated together suggest that prognosis is best in those with normal RV function and no elevations in biomarkers,46,66,69 with short-term mortality rates approaching ≈1%. We suggest the qualifier “low risk” to describe this group, because absence of RV dysfunction and normal biomarkers identifies a set of patients with excellent prognosis. We recognize that some patients with low-risk PE, as we have defined it here, may still have significant rates of morbidity and mortality that are functions of older age and comorbidities.7,11 It is therefore important to incorporate risk stratification into the clinical decisions for each individual patient.We propose the following definition for low-risk PE: Acute PE and the absence of the clinical markers of adverse prognosis that define massive or submassive PE.Therapy for Acute Massive, Submassive, and Low-Risk PEResuscitation and medical therapy for acute PE have been reviewed elsewhere.2,3 Patients with objectively confirmed PE and no contraindications should receive prompt and appropriate anticoagulant therapy with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), intravenous or subcutaneous unfractionated heparin (UFH) with monitoring, unmonitored weight-based subcutaneous UFH, or subcutaneous fondaparinux. For patients with suspected or confirmed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, a non–heparin-based anticoagulant, such as danaparoid (not available in the United States), lepirudin, argatroban, or bivalirudin, should be used.114 Patients with intermediate or high clinical probability of PE should be given anticoagulant therapy during the diagnostic workup.2,3 Considerations about choice of chronic anticoagulant and duration of therapy are reviewed elsewhere.2,3Recommendations for Initial Anticoagulation for Acute PETherapeutic anticoagulation with subcutaneous LMWH, intravenous or subcutaneous UFH with monitoring, unmonitored weight-based subcutaneous UFH, or subcutaneous fondaparinux should be given to patients with objectively confirmed PE and no contraindications to anticoagulation (Class I; Level of Evidence A).Therapeutic anticoagulation during the diagnostic workup should be given to patients with intermediate or high clinical probability of PE and no contraindications to anticoagulation (Class I; Level of Evidence C).ThrombolysisPharmacology of Thrombolytic AgentsIn contrast to the passive reduction of thrombus size allowed by heparin, thrombolytic agents actively promote the hydrolysis of fibrin molecules.115 All fibrinolytic drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are enzymes that convert the patient's native circulating plasminogen into plasmin. Plasmin is a serine protease that cleaves fibrin at several sites, liberating fibrin-split products, including the D-dimer fragment. Table 3 qualitatively compares several clinically relevant features of fibrinolytic agents that have received approval for use by the FDA. In 2010, the FDA label for alteplase (Activase, Genentech, San Francisco, CA) explicitly stated that the agent is indicated for “… massive pulmonary emboli, defined as obstruction of blood flow to a lobe or multiple segments of the lung, or for unstable hemodynamics, ie, failure to maintain blood pressure without supportive measures.”121Table 3. Pharmacological Profile of Plasminogen-Activating Fibrinolytic AgentsFibrinolyticFDA Indication for PE?Direct Plasminogen Activator?Fibrinolytic DoseFibrin Specificity (Relative to Fibrinogen)PAI Resistance*StreptokinaseYesNo250 000-IU IV bolus followed by 100 000-IU/h infusion for 12–24 h116−−UrokinaseYesNo4400-IU/kg bolus, followed by 4400 IU · kg−1 · h−1 for 12–24 h117−−AlteplaseYesYes100-mg IV infusion over 2 h118++++ReteplaseNoYesDouble 10-U IV bolus† 30 min apart119++TenecteplaseNoYesWeight-adjusted