Dataset Information

Management dilemmas in acute pulmonary embolism.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Physicians treating acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are faced with difficult management decisions while specific guidance from recent guidelines may be absent. METHODS:Fourteen clinical dilemmas were identified by physicians and haematologists with specific interests in acute and chronic PE. Current evidence was reviewed and a practical approach suggested. RESULTS:Management dilemmas discussed include: sub-massive PE, PE following recent stroke or surgery, thrombolysis dosing and use in cardiac arrest, surgical or catheter-based therapy, failure to respond to initial thrombolysis, PE in pregnancy, right atrial thrombus, role of caval filter insertion, incidental and sub-segmental PE, differentiating acute from chronic PE, early discharge and novel oral anticoagulants. CONCLUSION:The suggested approaches are based on a review of the available evidence and guidelines and on our clinical experience. Management in an individual patient requires clinical assessment of risks and benefits and also depends on local availability of therapeutic interventions.

SUBMITTER: Condliffe R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3913120 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Management dilemmas in acute pulmonary embolism.

Condliffe Robin R Elliot Charlie A CA Hughes Rodney J RJ Hurdman Judith J Maclean Rhona M RM Sabroe Ian I van Veen Joost J JJ Kiely David G DG

Thorax 20131216 2

<h4>Background</h4>Physicians treating acute pulmonary embolism (PE) are faced with difficult management decisions while specific guidance from recent guidelines may be absent.<h4>Methods</h4>Fourteen clinical dilemmas were identified by physicians and haematologists with specific interests in acute and chronic PE. Current evidence was reviewed and a practical approach suggested.<h4>Results</h4>Management dilemmas discussed include: sub-massive PE, PE following recent stroke or surgery, thrombol ...[more]

PMID: 24343784

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrognostic assessment is important for the management of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (APE). Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simple PESI (sPESI) are new emerged prognostic assessment tools for APE. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the accuracy of the PESI and the sPESI to predict prognostic outcomes (all-cause and PE-related mortality, serious adverse events) in APE patients, and compare between these two PESIs.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE database were searched up to June 2012 using the terms "Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index" and "pulmonary embolism". Summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for prognostic outcomes in low risk PESI versus high risk PESI were calculated. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) used to estimate overall predicting accuracies of prognostic outcomes.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed low-risk PESI was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.15), PE-related mortality (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17) and serious adverse events (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.41), with no homogeneity across studies. In sPESI subgroup, the OR of all-cause mortality, PE-related mortality, and serious adverse events was 0.10 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.14), 0.09 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.26) and 0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.51), respectively; while in PESI subgroup, the OR was 0.14 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.16), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.21), and 0.30 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.38), respectively. For accuracy analysis, the pooled sensitivity, the pooled specificity, and the overall weighted AUC for PESI predicting all-cause mortality was 0.909 (95% CI: 0.900 to 0.916), 0.411 (95% CI: 0.407 to 0.415), and 0.7853±0.0058, respectively; for PE-related mortality, it was 0.953 (95% CI: 0.913 to 0.978), 0.374 (95% CI: 0.360 to 0.388), and 0.8218±0.0349, respectively; for serious adverse events, it was 0.821 (95% CI: 0.795 to 0.845), 0.389 (95% CI: 0.384 to 0.394), and 0.6809±0.0208, respectively. In sPESI subgroup, the AUC for predicting all-cause mortality, PE-related mortality, and serious adverse events was 0.7920±0.0117, 0.8317±0.0547, and 0.6454±0.0197, respectively. In PESI subgroup, the AUC was 0.7856±0.0075, 0.8158±0.0451, and 0.6609±0.0252, respectively.ConclusionsPESI has discriminative power to predict the short-term death and adverse outcome events in patients with acute pulmonary embolism, the PESI and the sPESI have similar accuracy, while sPESI is easier to use. However, the calibration for predicting prognosis can't be calculated from this meta-analysis, some prospective studies for accessing PESI predicting calibration can be recommended.

Dataset Information

Management dilemmas in acute pulmonary embolism.

Publications

Management dilemmas in acute pulmonary embolism.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure