PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16597316

Acute venous thromboembolism.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To review the recent advances in management of acute venous thromboembolism. DATA SOURCES: Articles and published reviews on venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: Acute venous thromboembolism describes a group of disorders that include venous thrombosis (usually deep vein thrombosis) and pulmonary thromboembolism. Ultrasound supplemented by Doppler flow detection imaging has become the investigation of choice in the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis and spiral volumetric computed tomography or ventilation perfusion scan (if the patient is haemodynamically stable) or bedside echocardiography (if the patient is hypotensive) are often the initial investigations in a patient who has a suspected pulmonary thromboembolism. Magnetic resonance venography has only recently been evaluated and may prove in future to be a valuable diagnostic test for both deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism. Treatment requires immediate anticoagulation using either subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (e.g. enoxaparin 1 mg/kg 12-hourly or dalteparin 100 IU anti Xa/kg twice daily) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (80 U/kg as a bolus then 18 U/kg/hr and adjusted to keep the APTT 1.5-2x the control value). Oral anticoagulation using warfarin is started simultaneously with heparin. Fibrinolytic therapy is considered in all patients with pulmonary thromboembolism in whom there are no contraindications, as the improvement in right ventricular function is greater and the pulmonary artery perfusion defect is less compared with patients treated by anticoagulation alone. Fibrinolytic therapy is usually only considered in patients with deep vein thrombosis if severe limb oedema is present. While streptokinase, urokinase and alteplase have been recommended, alteplase (100 mg over two hours with heparinisation) may be the treatment of choice as alteplase has a shorter half life, has a more rapid effect and may be more effective in lysing older clots, when compared with streptokinase or urokinase. Reteplase (10 U over 2 minutes followed by 10 U 30 minutes later) may be as effective as alteplase. CONCLUSIONS: Acute venous thromboembolism is a disorder that carries a high morbidity and mortality. Anticoagulation with or without fibrinolysis is the treatment of choice.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M C Atkinson, L I Worthley. 2000. Acute venous thromboembolism.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16597316/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗