Search

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is the third most common cause of cardiovascular death. The management of the acute phase of VTE is well described in several papers and guidelines, whereas the management of the follow-up of the patients affected from VTE is less defined. This position paper of the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO) tries to fill the gap using currently available evidence and the opinion of the experts to suggest the most useful way to manage patients in the chronic phase.The clinical and laboratory tests acquired during the acute phase of the disease drives the decision of the following period. Acquired or congenital thrombophilic factors may be identified to explain an apparently not provoked VTE. In some patients, a not yet clinically evident cancer could be the trigger of VTE and this could lead to a different strategy. The main target of the post-acute management is to prevent relapse of the disease and to identify those patients who could worsen or develop chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. The knowledge of the etiopathogenetic ground is important to address the therapeutic approach, choosing the best antithrombotic strategy and deciding how long therapy should last. During the follow-up period, prognostic stratification should be updated on the basis of new evidences eventually acquired.Treatment of VTE is mainly based on oral or parenteral anticoagulation. Oral direct inhibitors of coagulation represent an interesting new therapy for the acute and extended period of treatment.

Institutional Ethics Committees. (DOCX 18 kb)

Background Pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) therapy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) are currently accepted therapies for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). This international CTEPH Registry identifies clinical characteristics of patients, diagnostic algorithms and treatment decisions in a global context. Methods 1010 newly diagnosed consecutive patients were included in the registry between February 2015 and September 2016. Diagnosis was confirmed by right heart catheterisation, ventilation–perfusion lung scan, computerised pulmonary angiography and/or invasive pulmonary angiography after at least 3 months on anticoagulation. Results Overall, 649 patients (64.3%) were considered for PEA, 193 (19.1%) for BPA, 20 (2.0%) for both PEA and BPA, and 148 (14.7%) for PAH therapy only. Reasons for PEA inoperability were technical inaccessibility (n=235), comorbidities (n=63) and patient refusal (n=44). In Europe and America and other countries (AAO), 72% of patients were deemed suitable for PEA, whereas in Japan, 70% of patients were offered BPA as first choice. Sex was evenly balanced, except in Japan where 75% of patients were female. A history of acute pulmonary embolism was reported for 65.6% of patients. At least one PAH therapy was initiated in 35.8% of patients (26.2% of PEA candidates, 54.5% of BPA candidates and 54.1% of those not eligible for either PEA or BPA). At the time of analysis, 39 patients (3.9%) had died of pulmonary hypertension-related causes (3.5% after PEA and 1.8% after BPA). Conclusions The registry revealed noticeable differences in patient characteristics (rates of pulmonary embolism and sex) and therapeutic approaches in Japan compared with Europe and AAO., There are distinct regional differences in the management of CTEPH patients but globally, the proportion of patients managed by PEA remains stable, independently of the new established treatment options of PAH therapies and BPA https://bit.ly/3zEXxkv