Literature DB >> 34104416

Clinical profile and management of patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism - a single centre, large observational study from India.

Thoddi Ramamurthy Muralidharan1, Sankaran Ramesh1, Balakrishnan Vinod Kumar1, Aditya V Ruia1, Mohan Kumar1, Akshaya Gopalakrishnan2, Gurpreet S Johal3, Amit Hooda3, Rohit Malhotra3, Reza Masoomi3, Mahalakshmi Ramadoss4, Vinodhini Subramanian1, Maria J Kalsingh5, Panchanatham Manokar1, Jebaraj Rathinasamy1, Shanmugasundram Sadhanandham1, Jayanthy V Balasubramaniyan1, Preetam Krishnamurthy1, Jayanthy S Murthy1, Sadagopan Thanikachalam1, Nagendra Boopathy Senguttuvan1,6.   

Abstract

Acute pulmonary thromboembolism is associated with high mortality, similar to that of myocardial infarction and stroke. We studied the clinical presentation and management of pulmonary thromboembolism in the Indian population. An analysis of 140 patients who presented with acute pulmonary thromboembolism at a large volume center in India from June 2015 through December 2018 was performed. The mean age of our study population was 50 years with 59% being male. Comorbidities including deep vein thrombosis, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were present in 52.9%, 40%, 35.7% and 7.14% of patients, respectively. Out of 140 patients, 40 (28.6%) patients had massive pulmonary thromboembolism, 36 (25.7%) sub-massive pulmonary thromboembolism, and 64 (45.7%) had low-risk pulmonary thromboembolism. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 25.7%. Multivariate regression analysis found chronic kidney disease and pulmonary thromboembolism severity to be the only independent risk factors. Thrombolysis was performed in 62.5% of patients with a massive pulmonary thromboembolism and 63.9% of patients with a sub-massive pulmonary thromboembolism. In the massive pulmonary thromboembolism group, patients receiving thrombolytic therapy had lower mortality compared with patients who did not receive therapy (p=0.022), whereas this difference was not observed in patients in the sub-massive pulmonary thromboembolism group. We conclude that patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism in India presented more than a decade earlier than our western counterparts, and it was associated with poor clinical outcomes. Thrombolysis was associated with significantly reduced in-hospital mortality in patients with massive pulmonary thromboembolism.
© The Author(s) 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acute cor-pulmonale; acute pulmonary embolism; shock; thrombolysis

Year:  2021        PMID: 34104416      PMCID: PMC8164559          DOI: 10.1177/2045894021992678

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pulm Circ        ISSN: 2045-8932            Impact factor:   3.017


Introduction

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) constitutes a disease spectrum ranging from deep venous thromboembolism (DVT) of the extremities to massive pulmonary thromboembolism (PE), which is associated with high morbidity and mortality if left untreated. Incidence of VTE varies from 0.5 to 2 per 1000 inhabitants.[1,2] The exact incidence of PE remains unknown, as it may go undetected in 40–50% of patients with DVT.[6] An autopsy-based study showed that approximately one-third of patients with a fatal PE could be identified before death.[4] The International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER) demonstrated that the mortality rates for massive and sub-massive PE were 58.3% and 15.1%, respectively.[5] There are limited data with regard to PE, its management and associated complications in India, with the majority of the clinical evidence being derived largely from case reports and a select few small-sized studies.[6] An autopsy-based study from Northern India showed PE to be the cause of death in 15.9% of all hospitalized patients.[7] A recent epidemiological study including 2420 Asian patients reported that the rate of symptomatic VTE or sudden death due to VTE to be 2.3% higher than their western counterparts.[8] According to the guidelines set out by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) [9] and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC),[10] therapeutic management of patients with PE included anti-coagulation, intravenous and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CBT), and surgical embolectomy. We sought to study the clinical characteristics, treatment strategy, in-hospital outcomes, and prognostic factors of patients with pulmonary embolism in India.

Methods

Study design

Our study was a non-randomized, retrospective, single-center, observational study, and was an investigator-initiated non-funded research project. Patients >18 years of age who were diagnosed and treated at our Institute from June 2015 through December 2018 were enrolled in the study. The study was approved by the Institute’s Ethics Committee. Informed consent was not obtained from the patients, as this study was a retrospective study which was based on a database. Patients with acute PE that was diagnosed by computer tomography-pulmonary angiography (CT-PA), patients with acute PE superimposed on a background of chronic PE, and patients in shock with screening echocardiogram showing evidence of PE were included in the study. Patients with chronic PE or diagnosed with PE in the remote past who were admitted for other medical reasons, patients with no demonstrable PE by CT-PA, and no echocardiographic evidence of PE were excluded from the study.

Data collection

Two physicians (MK and AVR) collected the patients’ data from the electronic database information system of our institution. If there was any discrepancy in the data collected, a third physician (NBS) served as an arbitrator to resolve any issues. Information about presenting symptoms, co-morbidities, laboratory results, and findings of imaging studies which included venous Doppler, trans-thoracic echocardiogram (TTE), and CT-PA was collected. Data pertaining to treatment administered to individual patients including anticoagulation therapy, thrombolytic therapy, and surgical thrombectomy were also collected. Patients were categorized into massive, sub-massive, and low-risk PE groups based on the 2011 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines[9] (Supplementary document) with the demographics, treatment, and outcomes being analyzed separately for each group. The primary outcome of the study was in-hospital mortality. Bleeding outcomes were evaluated and graded based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC), with patients who had a BARC grade of ≥3 being considered significant.[11,12]

Statistical analysis

We expressed categorical data as ratio or proportion or percentage, and continuous data as mean ± standard deviation or median (Interquartile range), as appropriate. Continuous variables were analyzed by t-test or ANOVA when appropriate. We used the Chi-square test to assess the significance of categorical variables. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for in-hospital mortality. A two-tailed p-value <0.05 was considered significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS 26 (IBM, New York).

Results

Baseline characteristics

One hundred and forty patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 50 ± 15 years (41% female) (Table 1). The most common presenting symptom was NYHA class III and NYHA class IV dyspnea (61.5%), followed by chest pain (35%) and cough (32%). The mean duration from symptom onset to hospital presentation was 3.2 days with 75% of patients presenting within five days. DVT, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, recent surgery, recent trauma, malignancy, coronary artery disease, and COPD were present in 52.9%, 40%, 35.7%, 25.7%, 17.1%, 16.4%, 10.3%, and 7.14% of patients, respectively. The mean pulse rate was 109 beats per minute, and the mean respiratory rate was 25 breaths per minute. The in-hospital mortality was 25.7%. Right ventricular dysfunction and severe pulmonary hypertension (PH)were noticed in 50% and 5.7% of patients, respectively.
Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of study population

Baseline characteristics of the study population (n = 140)Count (No.)Percentage of patients/±1 standard deviation
Age (year)50.3±14.87
Sex
 Female5740.7%
 Male8359.3%
Symptoms
Dyspnea
 NYHA I2316.4%
 NYHA II3122.1%
 NYHA III5337.9%
 NYHA IV3323.6%
Syncope1410.0%
Chest Pain4935.0%
Cough4532.1%
Hemoptysis1410.0%
Palpitations1913.6%
Risk factors
 Deep venous thrombosis7452.9%
 Diabetes5640.0%
 Malignancy2316.4%
 Hypertension5035.7%
 Chronic kidney disease139.2%
 Recent surgery3625.7%
 Pregnancy32.1%
 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease107.1%
 Trauma2417.1%
 Travel10.7%
 Pulse (per minute)108.89±19.19
 Respiratory rate (per minute)25.62±6.984
Pulmonary embolism severity index
 <653827.1%
 66–853625.7%
 86–1052014.2%
 106–1251611.4%
 >1253021.4%
Right ventricular dysfunction7050%
Pulmonary hypertension (PH)/right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP)
  No PH (PH<30mmHG)5942.1%
  Mild PH ( PH-30-49mmHg)4129.2%
  Moderate PH (PH- 50-69mmHg)3222.8%
  Severe PH (PH->70mmHg)85.7%
Thrombolysis done5035.7%
Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) Bleeding ≥3139.2%
Mortality3625.7%
Baseline characteristics of study population

Univariate and multivariate analysis

It was found that chronic kidney diseases (CKDs), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), PESI score, pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI class), PE severity, and PH were significantly different between patients who survived and patients who died (Table 2). Patients with massive PE had PESI scores ranging between 124 and 144. Patients with sub-massive PE had PESI scores ranging between 81 and 99, while those with low-risk PE had PESI scores ranging between 59 and 69. Correlation between PESI and death was highly significant (p<0.001). Patients who survived had PESI scores between 72.5 and 83.95, whereas patients who died had PESI scores between 113.73 and 141.33, thereby emphasizing the importance of the PESI score as a prognostic tool. The receiver operating curve (ROC) comparing PESI score with in-hospital mortality showed a significant positive relationship between the two variables. The area under the curve for the ROC curve was 0.852 (CI: 0.772–0.932) with a p-value <0.001. Using a PESI score of 129 as a cutoff for predicting mortality, a strong positive correlation was seen between the two variables (p<0.001). Patients with a PESI score of ≥129 were found to have a mortality rate of 78.3%. However, multivariate regression analysis found massive PE to be an independent risk factor for in-hospital mortality (Table 3). A negative association of mortality with CKD status was also noted.
Table 2.

Univariate analysis for in-hospital mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism

CharacteristicsLiveDeathp value
Age (year)49.65 ± 15.3552.25 ± 13.4240.369
Sex  
 Female41 (39.4%)16 (44.40%)0.597
 Male63 (60.6%)20 (55.60%)
Acute worsening of symptoms (days)3.34 ± 3.8182.89 ± 2.4350.512
Dyspnea NYHA I20 (19.2%)3 (8.3%)0.077
 NYHA II26 (25.1%)5 (13.90%)
 NYHA III38 (36.5%)13 (41.70)%
 NYHA IV20 (19.2%)9 (36.1%)
Syncope9 (8.7%)5 (13.90%)0.367
Chest pain39 (37.5%)10 (27.80%)0.292
Cough32 (30.80%)13 (36.10%)0.554
Hemoptysis12 (11.50%)2 (5.60%)0.302
Palpitations14 (13.5%)5 (13.90%)0.949
DVT55 (52.9%)19 (52.80%)0.991
DM38 (36.50%)18 (50.00%0.155
Malignancy17 (16.3%)6 (16.70%)0.964
Systemic hypertension34 (32.7%)16 (44.40%)0.205
Recent surgery29 (27.90%)7 (19.40%)0.318
Pregnancy2 (1.90%)1 (2.80%)0.760
CKD5 (4.8%)8 (22.2%)0.002
COPD4 (3.80%)6 (16.70%)0.010
Trauma19 (18.30%)5 (13.90%)0.548
Travel1 (1.00%)0 (0%)0.555
PESI
 ≤6536 (34.6%)2 (5.6%)0.001
 66–8533 (31.7%)3 (8.3%)
 86–10516 (15.4%)4 (11.1%)
 106–12513 (12.3%)3 (8.3%)
 >1256 (5.8%)24 (66.7%)
Pulmonary embolism severity index78.26 ± 29.273127.53 ± 40.790<0.001
PTE severity
 Massive11 (10.6%)29 (80.6%)<0.001
 Sub massive33 (31.7%)3 (8.3%)
 Low risk60 (57.7%)4 (11.1%)
RV Dysfunction43 (41.3%)27 (75.0%)0.001
Pulmonary hypertension(PH)/ Right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP)  
 No PH (PAH<30mmHG)47 (45.20%12 (33.30%)0.001
Mild PH ( PAH-30–49mmHg)36 (34.60%)5 (13.90%)
Moderate PH (PAH- 50–69mmHg)15 (14.4%)17 (47.2%)
Severe PH (PAH->70mmHg)06 (5.8%)02 (5.6%)
Thrombolysis-done34 (32.7%)16 (44.4%)0.205
Table 3.

Multivariate analysis for in-hospital mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism.

ParametersSignificance (p)Odds ratio
95% Confidence interval
Lower limitUpper limit
Chronic kidney disease0.0120.1050.0180.612
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease0.360.410.0612.78
Massive PE<0.000167.278.89508.74
Sub massive PE0.5481.950.2118.64
Right ventricular dysfunction0.292.800.4119.17
Mild pulmonary hypertension0.711.550.1615.4
Moderate pulmonary hypertension0.800.740.707.72
Severe pulmonary hypertension0.253.720.3935.41
Univariate analysis for in-hospital mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism Multivariate analysis for in-hospital mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism.

Subgroup analysis

Out of 140 patients, 40 (28.6%) had a massive PE, 36 (25.7%) had a sub-massive PE, and 64 (45.7%) had a low-risk PE (Fig. 1a). Age (p=0.003), COPD (p=0.008), and PESI score (p=0.001) were found to be significantly different in the sub-group analysis. Patients within the massive PE group were found to be significantly younger as compared to the rest (Table 4). Sub-group analysis showed that patients with a massive PE had an in-hospital mortality rate of 72.5% as opposed to 8.3% and 6.3% in patients with a sub-massive PE and a low-risk PE, respectively (Table 4). Further, subgroup analysis of patients with massive PE based on their thrombolytic status showed no difference between those who received thrombolytic therapy and those who had not received thrombolytic therapy except in hypertension and PESI class. Patients who had not received thrombolytic therapy had a history of hypertension in 57.1% as compared with 16.7% in the other group (p=0.01). In the non-thrombolytic therapy group, 92.9% belonged to PESI class 5 status as compared with 50% in the thrombolytic group (p=0.02).
Fig. 1.

(a) The classification of patients with pulmonary embolism based on clinical severity. (b) The percentage of patients who received thrombolysis in each category.

Table 4.

Pulmonary embolism and clinical outcomes based on clinical severity.

Characteristics 
Pulmonary thromboembolism Severity
Massive(n=40)Sub massive(n=36)Low risk(n=64)p value
Age (year)47 ± 1450 ± 1652 ± 150.003
Sex   
 Female16 (40%)11 (30.60%)30 (46.90%)0.279
 Male24 (60%)25 (69.40%)34 (53.10%)
Dyspnea   
 NYHA I4 (10%)0 (0%)19 (29.70%)Stat test could not be performed
 NYHA II3 (7.50%)11 (30.60%)17 (26.60%)
 NYHA III16 (40%)16 (44.40)%21 (32.80%)
 NYHA IV17 (42.50%)9 (25%)7 (10.90%)
Syncope6 (15%)4 (11.10%)4 (6.30%)0.340
Chest pain12 (30%)16 (44.40%)21 (32.80%)0.371
Cough11 (27.50%)12 (33.30%)22 (34.40%)0.754
Hemoptysis3 (7.50%)4 (11.10%)7 (10.90%)0.823
Palpitations6 (15%)7 (19.40%)6 (9.40%0.352
Deep venous thrombosis20 (50%)19 (52.80%)35 (54.70%)0.897
Diabetes15 (37.50%)15 (41.70%26 (40.60%)0.925
Malignancy6 (15%)7 (19.40%)10 (15.60%)0.849
Hypertension14 (35%)15 (41.70%)21 (32.80%)0.671
Recent surgery9 (22.50%)8 (22.20%)19 (29.70%)0.614
Pregnancy1 (2.50%)1 (2.80%)1 (1.60%)0.906
Chronic kidney disease6 (15%)3 (3.80%)4 (6.30%)0.318
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease7 (17.50%)2 (5.60%)1 (1.60%)0.008
Trauma7 (17.50%)6 (16.70%)11 (17.20%)0.995
Travel1 (2.50%)0 (0%)0 (0%)0.284
Duration (days)4 ± 56 ± 46 ± 70.287
Acute worsening (days)3 ± 24 ± 23 ± 50.154
Pulmonary embolism severity index134 ± 3290 ± 2764 ± 20<0.001
Outcome   
 Live11 (27.50%)33 (91.70%)60 (93.80%)<0.001
 Death29 (72.50%)3 (8.30%)4 (6.30%)
Pulmonary embolism severity index   
 Live119.91 ± 21.58589.64 ± 27.2664.37 ± 20.54Not significant
 Death139.83 ± 33.3797.33 ± 25.1561 ± 17.91
Lysed   
 Thrombolyzed25 (62.50%)23 (63.90%)2 (3.10%)<0.001
 Not thrombolyzed15 (37.50%)13 (36.10%)62 (96.90%)
Bleeding   
 Yes5 (12.50%5 (13.90%)3 (4.70%)0.223
 No35 (87.50%)31 (86.10%)61 (95.30%)
Thrombolyzed
 Live10 (40%)a22 (95.7%)b2 (100 %)c
 Death15 (60%)a1 (4.3%)b0 (0.1%)c
Not thrombolyzed
 Live1 (6.7%)a11 (84.6%)b58 (58.1 %)c
 Death14 (93.3%)a2 (15.4%)b4 (3.9%)c

ap=0.022.

b,cp=not significant.

(a) The classification of patients with pulmonary embolism based on clinical severity. (b) The percentage of patients who received thrombolysis in each category. Pulmonary embolism and clinical outcomes based on clinical severity. ap=0.022. b,cp=not significant.

Use of thrombolytic therapy and its clinical effects

Thrombolytic therapy was given to 62.5% of patients who had massive PE and 63.9% of patients who had sub-massive PE (Fig. 1b). In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who had a massive PE and received thrombolytic therapy compared with those who did not receive thrombolytic therapy (p=0.02) (Fig. 2 and Table 4). In contrast, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between those patients who had sub-massive PE and received thrombolytic therapy compared with those who did not. In the low-risk PE group, two patients received intravenous thrombolytic therapy. One patient received thrombolytic therapy to prevent complications of post-thrombotic syndrome due to a large thrombus burden of DVT involving the left common iliac vein and inferior vena cava. The second patient had protein S deficiency and a history of recurrent PE with a large thrombus burden of DVT. The second patient underwent thrombolysis with tenecteplase, and during the post-thrombolysis phase, an IVC filter was placed. In total, 9.2% had significant bleeding, while 14% of patients with PE treated with thrombolytic therapy developed BARC grade ≥3 bleeding requiring a blood transfusion. In patients who were not administered thrombolytic therapy, 5.6% of them required a blood transfusion due to anemia or malignancy-related coagulopathy.
Fig. 2.

The survival of patients with different clinical presentation based on their status of thrombolysis.

The survival of patients with different clinical presentation based on their status of thrombolysis.

Use of catheter-directed therapy and other medications

Three patients with acute massive PE received catheter-directed therapy (CDT). One patient had a history of a hemorrhagic cerebro-vascular accident (CVA) and survived, whereas the two other patients died from their disease. One patient with low-risk PE and significant DVT involving proximal deep veins was thrombolyzed peripherally using CDT. All survived patients were initially anticoagulated using unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin and subsequently transitioned to one of the following oral anticoagulants warfarin, nicoumalone, apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study from India evaluating the presenting symptoms and clinical outcomes in patients with PE. In our study, 25.7% of patients with PE died, while 72.5% of patients with massive PE died. Nearly two-thirds of patients with massive PE received thrombolytic therapy. The in-hospital mortality for the patients with massive PE who received thrombolytic therapy was 60%, while for those who did not receive thrombolytic therapy was 93.3%, with an absolute risk reduction of 33.3% (NNT=3). Indians appear to have a greater propensity towards developing PE at an earlier age, especially massive PE, and are associated with higher mortality. In this study, we found that the mean age of the Indian population having PE was 50 years as opposed to above 65 years as seen in the Western population.[13,14] Our finding is in accordance with the findings observed in the Arrive registry which is one of the largest studies on VTE from India.[15] A recent trial in South India also found that the mean age of presentation was 52 years.[16] PE should therefore be suspected in any patient with unexplained or new-onset dyspnea, chest pain, palpitations, syncope, or unexplained hypotension.[17] Early detection and prompt treatment are vital to the management of patients with PE .[18] Previously published studies have found that a PESI score >125 was associated with a higher risk of mortality.[19] We also found that a PESI score >129 was highly predictive of mortality in our univariate analysis alone. Of patients with a PESI score >129, 78.4% died. Multiple factors were found to be associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with PE in the univariate analysis. However, massive PE was an independent predictors of in-hospital mortality in the multivariate analysis. Nearly two-thirds of patients with massive PE received thrombolytic therapy. Patients who had a massive PE and received thrombolytic therapy had a lower mortality rate (NNT=3), thereby emphasizing the importance of initiating therapy promptly, specifically in critically ill patients with acute cor-pulmonale due to PE. Thrombolytic therapy is associated with a higher rate of bleeding complications. It was observed that 12.5% of patients with massive PE who received thrombolytics developed bleeding BARC grade ≥3, requiring a blood transfusion. For patients who were deemed to be of high bleeding risk for systemic thrombolytics, catheter-directed therapy (CDT) is a potential alternative. [20,21] CDT can be in the form of catheter-assisted embolectomy or catheter-directed intra-pulmonary thrombolysis and are proposed to have increased efficacy with better safety outcomes. Since we can directly instill the thrombolytic agent at a lower dosage into the thrombus via a side hole catheter, the rate of major systemic bleeding is reported to be lower as compared to systemic thrombolytic therapy[20,21] though occasional pulmonary hemorrhage can occur.[22] These interventions need more research and standardization before they are widely used. At present, CDT can be used in patients with massive PE who have a high bleeding risk or failed systemic thrombolysis, provided appropriate expertise is available.[23] In our study, three patients with acute massive PE received catheter-directed therapy. One patient survived, while the other two succumbed to their illness. Of the patients who had sub-massive PE, 64% of them received thrombolytic therapy. Unlike patients with massive PE treated with thrombolytic therapy, in-hospital mortality was not affected by the administration of thrombolytic therapy in the sub-massive group. There is a clear discordance between the major societal guidelines in the management of sub-massive PE.[10,23] A large, randomized trial, PEITHO – Pulmonary Embolism International Thrombolysis Trial has shown that fibrinolytic therapy decreased hemodynamic decompensation, while increasing the risk of major hemorrhage and stroke when compared with anticoagulation alone in patients with high-risk sub-massive PE [24] without any effect on mortality. Therefore, bleeding risk associated with thrombolytic therapy is an important factor that warrants consideration in patients with PE. Higher mortality in patients with massive PE especially in those who had not received the thrombolytic therapy may be inherently biased by the critical status of the patients which were shown by a higher PESI score compared with those who had received thrombolytic therapy. Also, a delay in clinical presentation, failure to administer thrombolytic agents, and associated co-morbid illnesses may add to the increased mortality observed in the overall population. VTE-associated pulmonary embolism should be given equal importance as myocardial infarction and acute stroke considering the poor outcomes noticed in less-industrialized countries like India. Institution of regional centers which serve patients with PE, and an active pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) which consists of a multi-pronged, collaborative approach among various subspecialties in order to effectively coordinate the care of patients with massive PE has been associated with improved outcomes.[25-27]

Conclusion

In our study, acute PE presented more than a decade earlier in Indian patients compared with their western counterparts and was associated with a very high mortality if left undetected or untreated. Thrombolytic therapy was associated with significantly reduced in-hospital mortality in patients with massive PE. Public education of this illness, promptly recognizing acute pulmonary thromboembolism and the concept of Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT)with the creation of regional centers of excellence serving such patients will likely be instrumental in achieving improved patient outcomes.

Limitations

This was a single-center study done at a teaching hospital in Chennai, India. Therefore, the results of this study may not apply to other types of practice and other regions. Also, this was a retrospective, observational study dependent on the medical records and a computer-based patient database system; therefore, all possible limitations of a retrospective study hold true. Click here for additional data file. Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pul-10.1177_2045894021992678 for Clinical profile and management of patients with acute pulmonary thromboembolism – a single centre, large observational study from India by Thoddi Ramamurthy Muralidharan, Sankaran Ramesh, Balakrishnan Vinod Kumar, Aditya V. Ruia, Mohan Kumar, Akshaya Gopalakrishnan, Gurpreet S. Johal, Amit Hooda, Rohit Malhotra, Reza Masoomi, Mahalakshmi Ramadoss, Vinodhini Subramanian, Maria J. Kalsingh, Panchanatham Manokar, Jebaraj Rathinasamy, Shanmugasundram Sadhanandham, Jayanthy V. Balasubramaniyan, Preetam Krishnamurthy, Jayanthy S. Murthy, Sadagopan Thanikachalam and Nagendra Boopathy Senguttuvan in Pulmonary Circulation
  24 in total

1.  Systematic lung scans reveal a high frequency of silent pulmonary embolism in patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis.

Authors:  M Meignan; J Rosso; H Gauthier; F Brunengo; S Claudel; L Sagnard; P d'Azemar; G Simonneau; B Charbonnier
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-01-24

2.  Clinical suspicion of fatal pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  L A Pineda; V S Hathwar; B J Grant
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.410

3.  Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER)

Authors:  S Z Goldhaber; L Visani; M De Rosa
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-04-24       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams.

Authors:  David M Dudzinski; Gregory Piazza
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 5.  Pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Menno V Huisman; Stefano Barco; Suzanne C Cannegieter; Gregoire Le Gal; Stavros V Konstantinides; Pieter H Reitsma; Marc Rodger; Anton Vonk Noordegraaf; Frederikus A Klok
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 52.329

6.  Fibrinolysis for patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism.

Authors:  Guy Meyer; Eric Vicaut; Thierry Danays; Giancarlo Agnelli; Cecilia Becattini; Jan Beyer-Westendorf; Erich Bluhmki; Helene Bouvaist; Benjamin Brenner; Francis Couturaud; Claudia Dellas; Klaus Empen; Ana Franca; Nazzareno Galiè; Annette Geibel; Samuel Z Goldhaber; David Jimenez; Matija Kozak; Christian Kupatt; Nils Kucher; Irene M Lang; Mareike Lankeit; Nicolas Meneveau; Gerard Pacouret; Massimiliano Palazzini; Antoniu Petris; Piotr Pruszczyk; Matteo Rugolotto; Aldo Salvi; Sebastian Schellong; Mustapha Sebbane; Bozena Sobkowicz; Branislav S Stefanovic; Holger Thiele; Adam Torbicki; Franck Verschuren; Stavros V Konstantinides
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report.

Authors:  Clive Kearon; Elie A Akl; Joseph Ornelas; Allen Blaivas; David Jimenez; Henri Bounameaux; Menno Huisman; Christopher S King; Timothy A Morris; Namita Sood; Scott M Stevens; Janine R E Vintch; Philip Wells; Scott C Woller; Lisa Moores
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 9.410

8.  Epidemiology of venous thromboembolism in Asian patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery without thromboprophylaxis. The SMART study.

Authors:  A Leizorovicz; A G G Turpie; A T Cohen; L Wong; M C Yoo; A Dans
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 5.824

9.  Study of clinical profile and management of patients with pulmonary embolism - single center study.

Authors:  S Calwin Davidsingh; Narayanan Srinivasan; P Balaji; U Kalaichelvan; Ajit Sankaradas Mullasari
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2014-02-01

10.  2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS).

Authors:  Stavros V Konstantinides; Guy Meyer; Cecilia Becattini; Héctor Bueno; Geert-Jan Geersing; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Menno V Huisman; Marc Humbert; Catriona Sian Jennings; David Jiménez; Nils Kucher; Irene Marthe Lang; Mareike Lankeit; Roberto Lorusso; Lucia Mazzolai; Nicolas Meneveau; Fionnuala Ní Áinle; Paolo Prandoni; Piotr Pruszczyk; Marc Righini; Adam Torbicki; Eric Van Belle; José Luis Zamorano
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 35.855

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.