4.6 Article

Three-month mortality rate and clinical predictors in patients with venous thromboembolism and cancer. Findings from the RIETE registry

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 131, 期 1, 页码 24-30

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2012.10.007

关键词

Venous thromboembolism; Cancer; Mortality; Predictors

资金

  1. Sanofi Spain
  2. Bayer Pharma AG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), and particularly those with cancer, are at increased risk of recurrences, major bleeding, and short- / medium-term mortality. Data from 35,539 patients (6,075 of these with cancer), presenting with symptomatic VTE in the previous three months and enrolled in the worldwide RIETE registry, were evaluated to assess overall and pulmonary embolism (PE)-related mortality, and their potential predictors, with particular focus on patients with cancer. Overall 3-month mortality in the total RIETE population was 7.9%, and death was considered PE-related in 1.4%. Significantly more patients died among those with cancer (26.4%, vs 4.1% in no-cancer group, p<0.001). In 3.0% of cancer patients death was considered PE-related, compared to 1.0% in no-cancer group (p<0.001). Cancer was the strongest independent risk factor for both all-cause and PE-related mortality, and in the subgroup of cancer patients those with advanced disease, reduced mobility, chronic pulmonary disease, and those experiencing PE (vs isolated deep vein thrombosis) were at increased risk of PE-related death. According to the findings of our very large, real-world registry, in the three months following an acute episode VTE remains a substantial cause of mortality. Cancer patients are at particular high risk of VTE-related death. Clinical factors predicting a fatal PE identified in this study (cancer, immobility, comorbidities, increasing age, PE at presentation), could be considered for risk stratification scheme for secondary prophylaxis in daily practice. (C) 2012 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