Why the study?
How do direct oral anticoagulants and risk stratification impact the management and outcomes of patients with pulmonary embolism?
How do direct oral anticoagulants and risk stratification impact the management and outcomes of patients with pulmonary embolism?
Direct oral anticoagulants offer an effective and potentially safer alternative to standard anticoagulation for acute and extended treatment of pulmonary embolism, reducing the need for routine monitoring.
Emphasizes refined risk stratification for intermediate-risk PE; leaves open optimal thrombolysis role pending further data.
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a serious and costly disease for patients and healthcare systems. Guidelines emphasise the importance of differentiating between patients who are at high risk of mortality (those with shock and/or hypotension), who may be candidates for thrombolytic therapy or surgery, and those with less severe presentations. Recent clinical studies and guidelines have focused particularly on risk stratification of intermediate-risk patients. Although the use of thrombolysis has been investigated in these patients, anticoagulation remains the standard treatment approach. Individual risk stratification directs initial treatment. Rates of recurrence differ between subgroups of patients with PE; therefore, a review of provoking factors, along with the risks of morbidity and bleeding, guides the duration of ongoing anticoagulation. The direct oral anticoagulants have shown similar efficacy and, in some cases, reduced major bleeding compared with standard approaches for acute treatment. They also offer the potential to reduce the burden on patients and outpatient services in the post-hospital phase. Rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban have been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism versus placebo, when given for >12 months. Patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants do not require regular coagulation monitoring, but follow-up, ideally in a specialist PE clinic in consultation with primary care providers, is recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Limbrey et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: