4.6 Article

Risk factors for recurrent venous thromboembolism after unprovoked pulmonary embolism: the PADIS-PE randomised trial

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 51, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01202-2017

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (French Dept of Health)
  2. University Hospital of Brest
  3. Crossref Funder Registry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We aimed to identify risk factors for recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) after unprovoked pulmonary embolism. Analyses were based on the double-blind randomised PADIS-PE trial, which included 371 patients with a first unprovoked pulmonary embolism initially treated during 6 months who were randomised to receive an additional 18 months of warfarin or placebo and followed up for 2 years after study treatment discontinuation. All patients had ventilation/perfusion lung scan at inclusion (i.e. at 6 months of anticoagulation). During a median follow-up of 41 months, recurrent VTE occurred in 67 out of 371 patients (6.8 events per 100 person-years). In main multivariate analysis, the hazard ratio for recurrence was 3.65 (95% CI 1.33-9.99) for age 50-65 years, 4.70 (95% CI 1.78-12.40) for age >65 years, 2.06 (95% CI 1.14-3.72) for patients with pulmonary vascular obstruction index (PVOI). 5% at 6 months and 2.38 (95% CI 1.15-4.89) for patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. When considering that PVOI at 6 months would not be available in practice, PVOI >= 40% at pulmonary embolism diagnosis (present in 40% of patients) was also associated with a 2-fold increased risk of recurrence. After a first unprovoked pulmonary embolism, age, PVOI at pulmonary embolism diagnosis or after 6 months of anticoagulation and antiphospholipid antibodies were found to be independent predictors for recurrence.

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