Comparison of clinical and imaging characteristics and outcomes between provoked and unprovoked acute pulmonary embolism in Koreans.

阅读:4
作者:Uhm Jae-Sun, Jung Hae-Ok, Kim Chan-Joon, Kim Tae-Hoon, Youn Ho-Joong, Baek Sang Hong, Chung Wook-Sung, Seung Ki Bae
This study was performed to compare clinical and imaging parameters and prognosis of unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE), provoked PE with reversible risk factors (provoked-rRF), and provoked PE with irreversible risk factors (provoked-iRF) in Koreans. Three hundred consecutive patients (mean age, 63.6 ± 15.0 yr; 42.8% male) diagnosed with acute PE were included. The patients were classified into 3 groups; unprovoked PE, provoked-rRF, and provoked-iRF; 43.7%, 14.7%, and 41.7%, respectively. We followed up the patients for 25.4 ± 33.7 months. Composite endpoint was all-cause mortality and recurrent PE. The provoked-iRF group had significantly higher all-cause mortality, mortality from PE and recurrent PE than the unprovoked and provoked-rRF groups (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.034, respectively). Prognostic factors of composite endpoint in the unprovoked group were high creatinine (> 1.2 mg/dL; P < 0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 4.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.845-12.152), C-reactive protein (CRP; > 5 mg/L; P = 0.002; HR, 5.308; 95% CI, 1.824-15.447) and computed tomography (CT) obstruction index (P = 0.034; HR, 1.090; 95% CI, 1.006-1.181). In conclusion, provoked-iRF has a poorer prognosis than unprovoked PE and provoked-rRF. Renal insufficiency, high CRP, and CT obstruction index are poor prognostic factors in unprovoked PE.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。