Recurrence risk after anticoagulant treatment of limited duration for late, second venous thromboembolism.

Patients with a second venous thromboembolism generally receive anticoagulant treatment indefinitely, although it is known that the recurrence risk diminishes over time while the risk of hemorrhage persists with continued anticoagulation and increases with age. Based on these arguments and limited evidence for indefinitely prolonged treatment, the Dutch guidelines recommend considering treatment of a limited duration (i.e. 12 months) for a 'late' second venous thromboembolism, defined by a second venous thromboembolism diagnosed more than 1 year after discontinuing treatment for a first event. It is hypothesized that the risk of continued anticoagulation might outweigh the benefits in such circumstances. We evaluated this management in daily practice. Since 2003, limited duration of treatment was systematically considered at our hospital in consecutive patients, in whom we determined the recurrence risk. Of 131 patients with late second venous thromboembolism, 77 were treated for a limited duration, of whom 26 developed a symptomatic third venous thromboembolism thereafter during a cumulative follow-up of 277 years, resulting in an incidence rate of 9.4/100 patient-years (95% confidence interval: 6.1-14). The incidence rates in patients with unprovoked and provoked venous thromboembolism were 12/100 patient-years (95% confidence interval: 7.4-19) and 5.6/100 patient-years (95% confidence interval: 2.2-12), respectively [adjusted hazard ratio 2.8 (95% confidence interval: 1.1-7.2)]. The recurrence risk after treatment of limited duration for 'late' second venous thromboembolism exceeded the risk of hemorrhage associated with extended anticoagulation. Most patients may, therefore, be better served by treatment of indefinite duration, although the risk-benefit ratio of extended anticoagulation should be weighed for every patient.

Impact of delay in clinical presentation on the diagnostic management and prognosis of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

RATIONALE: The nonspecific clinical presentation of pulmonary embolism (PE) frequently leads to delay in its diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of delay in presentation on the diagnostic management and clinical outcome of patients with suspected PE. METHODS: In 4,044 consecutive patients with suspected PE, patients presenting more than 7 days from the onset of symptoms were contrasted with those presenting within 7 days as regards the safety of excluding PE on the basis of a clinical decision rule combined with D-dimer testing. Patients were followed for 3 months to assess the rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism and mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A delayed presentation (presentation >7 d) was present in 754 (18.6%) of the patients. The failure rate of an unlikely clinical probability and normal D-dimer test was 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-2.7) for patients with and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2-1.2) for those without diagnostic delay. D-dimer testing yielded a sensitivity of 99% (95% CI, 96-99%) and 98% (95% CI, 97-99%) in these groups, respectively. Patients with PE with diagnostic delay more frequently had centrally located PE (41% vs. 26%; P < 0.001). The cumulative rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism (4.6% vs. 2.7%; P = 0.14) and mortality (7.6% vs. 6.6%; P = 0.31) were not different for patients with and without delayed presentation. CONCLUSIONS: PE can be safely excluded based on a clinical decision rule and D-dimer testing in patients with a delayed clinical presentation. A delayed presentation for patients who survived acute PE was associated with a more central PE location, although this did not affect the clinical outcome at 3 months.