DOI•
Management of Pulmonary Thromboembolism
18 Nov 2021-
About: The article was published on 2021-11-18 and is currently open access. It has received 1 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Medicine & Pulmonary embolism.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A model that predicted and diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, pulmonary embolism and pulmonary tuberculosis, and provided assistance for primary physicians is established on the respiratory disease big data platform in southern Xinjiang.
Abstract: Objective Based on the respiratory disease big data platform in southern Xinjiang, we established a model that predicted and diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, pulmonary embolism and pulmonary tuberculosis, and provided assistance for primary physicians. Methods The method combined convolutional neural network (CNN) and long-short-term memory network (LSTM) for prediction and diagnosis of respiratory diseases. We collected the medical records of inpatients in the respiratory department, including: chief complaint, history of present illness, and chest computed tomography. Pre-processing of clinical records with “jieba” word segmentation module, and the Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformers (BERT) model was used to perform word vectorization on the text. The partial and total information of the fused feature set was encoded by convolutional layers, while LSTM layers decoded the encoded information. Results The precisions of traditional machine-learning, deep-learning methods and our proposed method were 0.6, 0.81, 0.89, and F1 scores were 0.6, 0.81, 0.88, respectively. Conclusion Compared with traditional machine learning and deep-learning methods that our proposed method had a significantly higher performance, and provided precise identification of respiratory disease.
3 citations
References
More filters
University of Mainz1, Paris Descartes University2, University of Perugia3, Carlos III Health Institute4, Utrecht University5, Helsinki University Central Hospital6, Leiden University7, French Institute of Health and Medical Research8, Imperial College London9, University of Alcalá10, University Hospital of Lausanne11, Medical University of Vienna12, University of Göttingen13, Maastricht University14, University of Franche-Comté15, University College Dublin16, Medical University of Warsaw17, University of Geneva18
TL;DR: Guidelines summarize and evaluate available evidence with the aim of assisting health professionals in proposing the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition.
Abstract: Guidelines summarize and evaluate available evidence with the aim of assisting health professionals in proposing the best management strategies for an individual patient with a given condition. Guidelines and their recommendations should facilitate decision making of health professionals in their daily practice. However, the final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible health professional(s) in consultation with the patient and caregiver as appropriate.
2,079 citations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill1, Cleveland Clinic2, University of Washington3, American Society of Clinical Oncology4, BC Cancer Agency5, University of Granada6, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center7, Penn State Cancer Institute8, Emory University9, University of Rochester10, University College London11, McMaster University12, University of Southern California13, University of California, San Francisco14, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center15, University of Milan16
TL;DR: An Expert Panel convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and revise previous recommendations as needed to provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.
Abstract: PURPOSETo provide updated recommendations about prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer.METHODSPubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized...
900 citations
TL;DR: Among patients with pulmonary embolism, including those who were hemodynamically stable with right ventricular dysfunction, thrombolytic therapy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality and increased risks of major bleeding and ICH.
Abstract: Importance Thrombolytic therapy may be beneficial in the treatment of some patients with pulmonary embolism. To date, no analysis has had adequate statistical power to determine whether thrombolytic therapy is associated with improved survival, compared with conventional anticoagulation. Objective To determine mortality benefits and bleeding risks associated with thrombolytic therapy compared with anticoagulation in acute pulmonary embolism, including the subset of hemodynamically stable patients with right ventricular dysfunction (intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism). Data Sources PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception through April 10, 2014. Study Selection Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials comparing thrombolytic therapy vs anticoagulant therapy in pulmonary embolism patients. Sixteen trials comprising 2115 individuals were identified. Eight trials comprising 1775 patients specified inclusion of patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted trial-level data including number of patients, patient characteristics, duration of follow-up, and outcomes. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes were risk of recurrent embolism and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Peto odds ratio (OR) estimates and associated 95% CIs were calculated using a fixed-effects model. Results Use of thrombolytics was associated with lower all-cause mortality (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.88; 2.17% [23/1061] vs 3.89% [41/1054] with anticoagulants; number needed to treat [NNT] = 59) and greater risks of major bleeding (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.91-3.91; 9.24% [98/1061] vs 3.42% [36/1054]; number needed to harm [NNH] = 18) and ICH (OR, 4.63; 95% CI, 1.78-12.04; 1.46% [15/1024] vs 0.19% [2/1019]; NNH = 78). Major bleeding was not significantly increased in patients 65 years and younger (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.50-3.14). Thrombolysis was associated with a lower risk of recurrent pulmonary embolism (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.74; 1.17% [12/1024] vs 3.04% [31/1019]; NNT = 54). In intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism trials, thrombolysis was associated with lower mortality (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.92) and more major bleeding events (OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 2.07-4.92). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with pulmonary embolism, including those who were hemodynamically stable with right ventricular dysfunction, thrombolytic therapy was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality and increased risks of major bleeding and ICH. However, findings may not apply to patients with pulmonary embolism who are hemodynamically stable without right ventricular dysfunction.
579 citations
Duke University1, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile2, Veterans Health Administration3, University of Florida4, Kaiser Permanente5, University of Pennsylvania6, University of Amsterdam7, Harvard University8, University of California, Davis9, McMaster University10, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University11, Washington University in St. Louis12, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven13, University of Utah14, University of Antioquia15
TL;DR: Recommendations include the use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with PE and hemodynamic compromise, use of an international normalized ratio (INR) range, and a preference for direct oral anticoagulants over VKA for primary treatment of VTE.
497 citations
TL;DR: The cutoffs of D-dimer levels used to exclude PE in preexisting guidelines seem applicable to patients with COVID-19, and more than half of patients with PE lacked DVT.
Abstract: Background The association of pulmonary embolism (PE) with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unclear, and the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE is unknown. Purpose To conduct meta-analysis of the study-level incidence of PE and DVT and to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE from multicenter individual patient data. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search identified studies evaluating the incidence of PE or DVT in patients with COVID-19 from January 1, 2020, to June 15, 2020. These outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model and were further evaluated using metaregression analysis. The diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer tests for PE was estimated on the basis of individual patient data using the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Twenty-seven studies with 3342 patients with COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The pooled incidence rates of PE and DVT were 16.5% (95% CI: 11.6, 22.9; I2 = 0.93) and 14.8% (95% CI: 8.5, 24.5; I2 = 0.94), respectively. PE was more frequently found in patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (24.7% [95% CI: 18.6, 32.1] vs 10.5% [95% CI: 5.1, 20.2] in those not admitted to the ICU) and in studies with universal screening using CT pulmonary angiography. DVT was present in 42.4% of patients with PE. D-dimer tests had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.737 for PE, and D-dimer levels of 500 and 1000 μg/L showed high sensitivity (96% and 91%, respectively) but low specificity (10% and 24%, respectively). Conclusion Pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) occurred in 16.5% and 14.8% of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), respectively, and more than half of patients with PE lacked DVT. The cutoffs of D-dimer levels used to exclude PE in preexisting guidelines seem applicable to patients with COVID-19. © RSNA, 2020 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Woodard in this issue.
283 citations