4.2 Review

Cholesterol embolization syndrome induced by thrombolytic therapy

期刊

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.2165/00129784-200808010-00004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cholesterol embolization syndrome (CES) induced by thrombolytic therapy is a rare syndrome with a high incidence of morbidity and mortality. The variability in clinical presentations may cause a delay in diagnosis of CES. This article presents a comprehensive review of the English literature from January 1980 to December 2007 identifying all published case reports of CES induced by thrombolytic therapy. Multiple electronic databases were searched and relevant reference lists were hand searched to identify all case reports. Thirty cases of thrombolytic-induced CES were identified. Indications for thrombolysis were acute myocardial infarction (28 patients) and deep venous thrombosis (two patients). Skin and renal involvement were the most common presentations. Skin manifestations included livedo reticularis, rash, and skin mottling. Other clinical symptoms included cyanotic toes, gastrointestinal bleeding, or perforation, myalgias, retinal emboli, and CNS involvement. Morbidity and mortality were high. Outcomes included chronic hemodialysis in eight patients, four patients underwent amputations, seven patients developed or had progression of their chronic kidney disease, and seven deaths occurred. CES presents as multiorgan dysfunction and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of the symptom complex that may develop after thrombolytic therapy. Diagnosis of CES can be difficult as a result of the variable clinical presentations. A thorough clinical history and physical examination are essential first steps in establishing a diagnosis. Confirmatory diagnosis requires biopsy of the target organs. Measures to reduce the likelihood of recurrence should be taken and include avoidance of anticoagulation therapy and vascular procedures. Unfortunately, therapy remains supportive and the outcome is invariably poor.

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

4.2
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