Search

Background: Few studies evaluated the performance of noninvasive diagnostic strategies for suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in pregnant women., Objectives: The aim of this study was to establish the safety and efficiency of the Wells rule with fixed and adapted D-dimer threshold, and the YEARS algorithm, combined with compression ultrasonography (CUS), in pregnant women with suspected PE in an individual patient data meta-analysis., Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify prospective diagnostic management studies in pregnant women with suspected PE. Primary outcomes were safety, defined as the failure rate, ie, the 3-month venous thromboembolism (VTE) incidence after excluding PE without chest imaging, and efficiency, defined as the proportion of patients in whom chest imaging could be avoided., Results: We identified 2 relevant studies, of which individual patient-level data were analyzed in a fixed-effect meta-analysis, totaling 893 pregnant women. The Wells rule with fixed and adapted D-dimer threshold as well as the YEARS algorithm could safely rule out acute PE (failure rate, 0·37%-1·4%), but efficiency improved considerably when applying pretest probability-adapted D-dimer thresholds. The efficiency of bilateral CUS was limited (2·3% overall; number needed to test 43), especially in patients without symptoms of deep-vein thrombosis (efficiency 0·79%; number needed to test 127)., Conclusion: This study supports the latest guideline recommendations (European Society of Cardiology 2019) to apply pretest probability assessment and D-dimer tests to rule out PE in pregnant women. From an efficiency perspective, the use of a strategy with pretest probability-adapted D-dimer threshold is preferred. The yield of CUS was very limited in patients without concomitant symptoms of deep-vein thrombosis., (Copyright © 2022 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: For exclusion of pulmonary embolism (PE) clinical decision rules in combination with a D-dimer assay are applied. Currently available D-dimer assays are not standardized and it is unknown whether these differences have an impact on diagnostic management of suspected PE. Therefore, the aim is to explore differences between D-dimer assays and their impact on diagnostic outcome., Methods: Data from all patients included in the YEARS study were collected. The YEARS study is a prospective, multicentre, cohort outcome study evaluating 3462 patients with suspected PE in which four different D-dimer assays were applied (Liatest, Innovance, Tinaquant, Vidas). Median D-dimer concentrations were calculated for each D-dimer assay. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for detection of PE of all four assays were determined in patients without YEARS items and in those with ≥1 YEARS items (i.e. symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, haemoptysis, and whether PE is the most likely diagnosis)., Results: A total of 1323, 1100, 768 and 271 D-dimer concentrations were collected using the Liatest Innovance, Tinaquant and Vidas assay, respectively. Median D-dimer concentrations differed significantly between assays, with lowest values in the Tinaquant assay. In patients without YEARS items using a cutoff level of 1000 ng/mL, the NPV varied from 99,5 to 100%. In patients with ≥1 YEARS items using a 500 ng/mL cutoff, the NPV varied from 97,0 to 100% depending on the assay., Conclusions: The overall high NPV for all assays demonstrates the clinical value of the D-dimer assay. However, these results confirm differences between D-dimer assays, which have an impact on follow-up imaging. This emphasizes the need for standardization of D-dimer assays., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A normal computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) remains a controversial criterion for ruling out acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with a likely clinical probability. We set out to determine the risk of VTE and fatal PE after a normal CTPA in this patient category and compare these risk to those after a normal pulmonary angiogram of 1.7 % (95 %CI 1.0-2.7 %) and 0.3 % (95 %CI 0.02-0.7 %). A patient-level meta-analysis from 4 prospective diagnostic management studies that sequentially applied the Wells rule, D-dimer tests and CTPA to consecutive patients with clinically suspected acute PE. The primary outcome was the 3-month VTE incidence after a normal CTPA. A total of 6,148 patients were included with an overall PE prevalence of 24 %. The 3-month VTE incidence in all 4,421 patients in whom PE was excluded at baseline was 1.2 % (95 %CI 0.48-2.6) and the risk of fatal PE was 0.11 % (95 %CI 0.02-0.70). In patients with a likely clinical probability the 3-month incidences of VTE and fatal PE were 2.0 % (95 %CI 1.0-4.1 %) and 0.48 % (95 %CI 0.20-1.1 %) after a normal CTPA. The 3-month incidence of VTE was 6.3 % (95 %CI 3.0-12) in patients with a Wells rule >6 points. In conclusion, this study suggests that a normal CTPA may be considered as a valid diagnostic criterion to rule out PE in the majority of patients with a likely clinical probability, although the risk of VTE is higher in subgroups such as patients with a Wells rule >6 points for which a closer follow-up should be considered.

Background: After diagnosis of cancer-associated VTE, guidelines recommend considering the continuation of anticoagulant treatment until the patient is cured of cancer, although the safety of stopping anticoagulant treatment after the patient is cured has never been evaluated., Methods: We conducted a cohort study in consecutive patients in whom cancer-associated VTE was diagnosed at the Leiden University Medical Center between January 2001 and January 2010 and monitored for the effect of cancer treatment, occurrence of recurrent VTE, major hemorrhage, and death., Results: Of the 358 patients with cancer-associated VTE, anticoagulant treatment was continued until the death of 207 patients. In another 12 patients anticoagulant treatment was continued because of an alternative indication despite their being cured of cancer. Anticoagulant treatment was stopped in 50 patients for reasons other than major hemorrhage despite active cancer, in 21 patients after major hemorrhage, and in 68 patients after they had been cured of cancer. Among these 68 patients, 10 patients received a diagnosis of symptomatic recurrent VTE during a cumulative follow-up of 311 years, resulting in an incidence rate of 3.2 per 100 patient-years (95% CI, 1.5-5.9). Seven of these 10 patients with recurrent VTE experienced a cancer relapse during follow-up. For the 50 patients who stopped anticoagulant treatment despite active cancer the recurrent VTE incidence rate was 19 per 100 patient-years (11 events during 59 years of follow-up; 95% CI, 9.3-33)., Conclusions: Our data support the recommendation to stop anticoagulant treatment of cancer-associated VTE in patients cured of cancer. A cancer relapse seems to be a strong risk factor for recurrent symptomatic VTE., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Signs and symptoms of acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) are notoriously non-specific. Therefore, diagnostic management algorithms have been developed, consisting of a clinical decision rule (CDR), D-dimer testing and an imaging test, that allow safe diagnostic management and the exclusion of VTE in clinical practice. However, several challenges still remain: adherence to the diagnostic algorithms, accurate diagnosis of recurrent VTE and reducing the radiation exposure associated with computed tomography pulmonary angiography for suspected PE. In this clinically oriented review, we will provide an overview of current diagnostic algorithms for suspected DVT and PE and focus on recent advances including strategies to improve adherence to recommended algorithms, age-dependent D-dimer threshold and novel imaging techniques., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most prevalent cancer type. CRC-patients are at increased risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism (TE), but the magnitude of the risks, their predictors and consequences are not exactly known. We aimed to determine incidence, predictors and prognosis of TE after incident CRC in a large, unselected population. Using data from Statistics Netherlands and the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, all incident CRC-patients were identified between 2013 and 2018 plus a sample of 1:2 age- and sex-matched control subjects. Incidence rates and cumulative incidences for TE were estimated. Predictor variables for TE were explored by univariable Cox regression. The association between TE and all-cause mortality was evaluated by multivariable time-dependent Cox regression. 68,238 incident CRC-patients were matched to 136,476 controls. CRC-patients had a 1-year cumulative venous TE (VTE) incidence of 1.93 % (95%CI 1.83–2.04), versus 0.24 % (95%CI 0.21–0.27) in controls (HR 8.85; 95%CI 7.83–9.99). For arterial TE (ATE), this was 2.74 % (95%CI 2.62–2.87) in CRC versus 1.88 % (95%CI 1.81–1.95) in controls (HR 1.57; 95%CI 1.47–1.66). Cancer stage, surgery, chemotherapy and asthma were predictors for VTE, whereas age, prior ATE and Parkinson's disease were predictors for ATE. CRC patients with TE had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (VTE HR; 3.68 (95%CI 3.30–4.10, ATE HR; 3.05 (95%CI 2.75–3.39)) compared with CRC-patients without TE. This Dutch nationwide cohort study adds detailed knowledge on the risk of VTE and ATE, their predictors and prognosis in CRC-patients. These findings may drive TE prophylactic management decisions. • Exact risk and predictors of thromboembolism in colorectal cancer (CRC) is unknown. • Using Dutch nationwide data, 68,238 CRC patients were matched to 136,476 controls. • Venous thromboembolism risk was more prominent on relative scale between cohorts. • Arterial thromboembolism presented a larger absolute risk in CRC versus controls. • Detailed knowledge presented on thrombosis risk, predictors and prognosis in CRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]