Anticoagulant treatment for subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of death, accounting for 50,000 to 200,000 deaths annually. It is the third most common cause of mortality among the cardiovascular diseases, after coronary artery disease and stroke.The advent of multi-detector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has allowed better assessment of PE regarding visualisation of the peripheral pulmonary arteries, increasing its rate of diagnosis. More cases of peripheral PEs, such as isolated subsegmental PE (SSPE) and incidental PE, have thereby been identified. These two conditions are usually found in patients with few or none of the classic PE symptoms such as haemoptysis or pleuritic pain, acute dyspnoea or circulatory collapse. However, in patients with reduced cardio-pulmonary (C/P) reserve the classic PE symptoms can be found with isolated SSPEs. Incidental SSPE is found casually in asymptomatic patients, usually by diagnostic imaging performed for other reasons (for example routine CT for cancer staging in oncologic patients).Traditionally, all PEs are anticoagulated in a similar manner independent of the location, number and size of the thrombi. It has been suggested that many patients with SSPE may be treated without benefit, increasing adverse events by possible unnecessary use of anticoagulants.Patients with isolated SSPE or incidental PE may have a more benign clinical presentation compared with those with proximal PEs. However, the clinical significance in patients and their prognosis have to be studied to evaluate whether anticoagulation therapy is required.This review is an update of a Cochrane systematic review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched December 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 11). MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and clinical trials databases were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with SSPE or incidental SSPE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors inspected all citations to ensure reliable selection. We planned for two review authors to independently extract data and to assess the methodological quality of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no randomised controlled trial evidence for the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE, and therefore we can not draw any conclusions. Well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.

Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common life-threatening cardiovascular condition, with an incidence of 23 to 69 new cases per 100,000 people per year. Outpatient treatment instead of traditional inpatient treatment in selected non-high-risk patients with acute PE might provide several advantages, such as reduction of hospitalizations, substantial cost saving and an improvement in health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE for the outcomes of all-cause and PE-related mortality; bleeding; and adverse events such as hemodynamic instability, recurrence of PE and patients' satisfaction. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 9). The TSC also searched clinical trials databases. The review authors searched LILACS (last searched November 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of outpatient versus inpatient treatment in people diagnosed with acute PE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality, and extracted and analyzed data. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study, involving 339 participants. We ranked the quality of the evidence as very low due to not blinding the outcome assessors, the small number of events with imprecision in the confidential interval (CI), the small sample size and it was not possible to verify publication bias. For all outcomes, the CIs were wide and included clinically significant treatment effects in both directions: short-term mortality (30 days) (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.98, P = 0.49), long-term mortality (90 days) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.58, P = 0.99), major bleeding at 14 days (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.24 to 101.57, P = 0.30) and 90 days (RR 6.88, 95% CI 0.36 to 134.14, P = 0.20), recurrent PE within 90 days (RR 2.95, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.85, P = 0.51) and participant satisfaction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.03, P = 0.30). PE-related mortality, minor bleeding, and adverse course such as hemodynamic instability and compliance were not assessed by the single included study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current very low quality evidence from one published randomized controlled trial did not provide sufficient evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of outpatient versus inpatient treatment for acute PE in overall mortality, bleeding and recurrence of PE adequately. Further well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.

Anticoagulant treatment for subsegmental pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of death, accounting for 50,000 to 200,000 deaths annually. It is the third most common cause of mortality among the cardiovascular diseases, after coronary artery disease and stroke.The advent of multi-detector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has allowed better assessment of PE regarding visualisation of the peripheral pulmonary arteries, increasing its rate of diagnosis. More cases of peripheral PEs, such as isolated subsegmental PE (SSPE) and incidental PE, have thereby been identified. These two conditions are usually found in patients with few or none of the classic PE symptoms such as haemoptysis or pleuritic pain, acute dyspnoea or circulatory collapse. However, in patients with reduced cardio-pulmonary (C/P) reserve the classic PE symptoms can be found with isolated SSPEs. Incidental SSPE is found casually in asymptomatic patients, usually by diagnostic imaging performed for other reasons (for example routine CT for cancer staging in oncologic patients).Traditionally, all PEs are anticoagulated in a similar manner independent of the location, number and size of the thrombi. It has been suggested that many patients with SSPE may be treated without benefit, increasing adverse events by possible unnecessary use of anticoagulants.Patients with isolated SSPE or incidental PE may have a more benign clinical presentation compared with those with proximal PEs. However, the clinical significance in patients and their prognosis have to be studied to evaluate whether anticoagulation therapy is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 9). MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and clinical trials databases were also searched (October 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with SSPE or incidental SSPE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors inspected all citations to ensure reliable selection. We planned for two review authors to independently extract data and to assess the methodological quality of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no randomised controlled trial evidence for the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE, and therefore we can not draw any conclusions. Well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.