4.6 Article

Mortality and recurrence after treatment of VTE: Long term follow-up of patients with good life-expectancy

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 127, 期 6, 页码 540-546

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.02.017

关键词

Venous thromboembolism; Recurrence; Mortality; Risk factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: After completed anticoagulant treatment for acute VTE, both the subsequent mortality and risk of recurrent VTE are high, probably related to the frequent presence of serious disease in these patients. The aim of the study was to determine survival and recurrence in selected patients with good life-expectancy, and to evaluate risk factors. Methods: The 323 patients were followed for median 7.4 years (range 4.1-11.9) after cessation of anticoagulation. Survival analysis and Cox-regression were used for univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: The cumulative incidence of survival after 5 years was 93.4%. Standardised mortality ratio was 1.42 for men and 1.28 for women. Patients without a transient risk factor prior to the index VTE were associated with higher risk of mortality compared to risk of mortality in patients with a transient risk factor (hazard ratio (HR) 2.81; 95% CI 1.40-5.62). Recurrence of VTE after 5 years was 19.0%. A persistent risk factor or a spontaneous VTE was associated with higher risk of recurrence compared to a transient risk factor (HR 2.39; 95% CI 1.44-3.95). Elevated D-dimer levels increased the risk, and immobilisation prior to the index VTE reduced the risk of recurrence. Sex, age and thrombophilia were not independent risk factors for recurrence. Conclusions: Despite a low mortality rate in this selected cohort, the recurrence rate and risk factors for recurrence were similar to findings reported in unselected populations. VTE unrelated to a transient risk factor was associated with increased mortality compared to mortality in patients with a transient risk factor. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据