Lesley Alexander, Susan Burnie, Catherine Rossiter, Chris Isles
{"title":"低危患者在肺栓塞后真的需要随访吗？","authors":"Lesley Alexander, Susan Burnie, Catherine Rossiter, Chris Isles","doi":"10.1177/14782715241311959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The British Thoracic Society recommend that pulmonary embolism (PE) patients with low-risk Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) scores are considered for outpatient (OP) management, in settings where robust pathways for follow-up and monitoring exist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study. We reviewed the electronic records of 109 consecutive PE patients considered appropriate for OP management. Primary outcomes were the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, mortality at 1 year and evidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Low-risk PESI scores (I-II) were recorded in 78 (72%) patients, with higher scores a consequence of age and comorbidity rather than haemodynamic instability. There was a low rate of adverse outcomes despite a lack of formal follow up for most patients. There was no evidence of CTEPH in 34 patients who underwent echocardiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our analysis challenges the need for robust follow-up pathways for all patients with pulmonary embolism.</p>","PeriodicalId":46606,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh","volume":" ","pages":"14-18"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do low-risk patients really need follow-up after a pulmonary embolism?\",\"authors\":\"Lesley Alexander, Susan Burnie, Catherine Rossiter, Chris Isles\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14782715241311959\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The British Thoracic Society recommend that pulmonary embolism (PE) patients with low-risk Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) scores are considered for outpatient (OP) management, in settings where robust pathways for follow-up and monitoring exist.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study. We reviewed the electronic records of 109 consecutive PE patients considered appropriate for OP management. Primary outcomes were the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, mortality at 1 year and evidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Low-risk PESI scores (I-II) were recorded in 78 (72%) patients, with higher scores a consequence of age and comorbidity rather than haemodynamic instability. There was a low rate of adverse outcomes despite a lack of formal follow up for most patients. There was no evidence of CTEPH in 34 patients who underwent echocardiography.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our analysis challenges the need for robust follow-up pathways for all patients with pulmonary embolism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"14-18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715241311959\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715241311959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Do low-risk patients really need follow-up after a pulmonary embolism?
Background: The British Thoracic Society recommend that pulmonary embolism (PE) patients with low-risk Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) scores are considered for outpatient (OP) management, in settings where robust pathways for follow-up and monitoring exist.
Methods: Retrospective cohort study. We reviewed the electronic records of 109 consecutive PE patients considered appropriate for OP management. Primary outcomes were the incidence of recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, mortality at 1 year and evidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).
Results: Low-risk PESI scores (I-II) were recorded in 78 (72%) patients, with higher scores a consequence of age and comorbidity rather than haemodynamic instability. There was a low rate of adverse outcomes despite a lack of formal follow up for most patients. There was no evidence of CTEPH in 34 patients who underwent echocardiography.
Conclusion: Our analysis challenges the need for robust follow-up pathways for all patients with pulmonary embolism.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (JRCPE) is the College’s quarterly, peer-reviewed journal, with an international circulation of 8,000. It has three main emphases – clinical medicine, education and medical history. The online JRCPE provides full access to the contents of the print journal and has a number of additional features including advance online publication of recently accepted papers, an online archive, online-only papers, online symposia abstracts, and a series of topic-specific supplements, primarily based on the College’s consensus conferences.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
