4.6 Article

Prognostic implications of computed tomographic right ventricular dilation in patients with acute pulmonary embolism

Journal

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
Volume 133, Issue 2, Pages 182-186

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2013.11.020

Keywords

Computed tomography; Prognosis; Pulmonary embolism; Right ventricular dysfunction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Whether right ventricular (RV) dilation on computerized tomography (RVD-CT) is a useful predictor for clinical outcomes of acute pulmonary embolism(PE) remains debatable. Furthermore, data regarding the best combination of prognostic markers for predicting the adverse outcome of PE are limited. Materials and Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed 657 consecutive patients hospitalized at a tertiary referral center with a diagnosis of PE based on multi-detector row CT scan. Results: Patients were allocated into an adverse outcome group (11% [n = 69]) or a low risk group (89% [n = 588]). Multivariate analysis showed that RVD-CT (RV/left ventricle [LV] diameter ratio = 1), high pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) score (class IV-V), high N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP,>= 1,136 pg/ml), and elevated troponin I (>= 0.05 ng/ml) significantly predicted an adverse outcome (odds ratio [OR] 6.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.74-14.31, p < 0.001; OR 4.71, 95% CI 2.00-11.07, p < 0.001; OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.15-6.39, p = 0.023; and OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.27-7.07, p = 0.012, respectively). The addition of RVD-CT to PESI, NT-proBNP, troponin I or their combinations enhanced the positive predictive values and positive likelihood ratios of an adverse outcome. Conclusions: RVD-CT could be an independent prognostic factor of adverse outcomes in patients with acute PE, and provides additional prognostic value when combined with other prognostic factors. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available