Why the study?
Does venous interruption or anticoagulant therapy prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with thromboembolism or at risk conditions?
Does venous interruption or anticoagulant therapy prevent pulmonary embolism in patients with thromboembolism or at risk conditions?
This review highlights that despite venous interruption or anticoagulant therapy, fatal pulmonary embolism can still occur, necessitating careful management.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Persistent PE risk despite venous interruption or anticoagulation warrants ongoing vigilance; leaves open superior prevention strategies.
A VOLUMINOUS literature dealing with pulmonary embolism testifies that neither venous interruption nor the use of anticoagulants has entirely prevented this accident. Allen1 observed 12 cases of fatal embolism following femoral-vein interruption in 2578 patients. Deaths from pulmonary embolism during the use of anticoagulants have been reported by Jorpes2 and by Wise et al.3 Physicians, therefore, must still thoughtfully consider the management not only of established thromboembolism but also of postoperative, post-traumatic and decompensated cardiac conditions in which it is commonly encountered.Most published reports have come from clinics where either venous interruption or anticoagulant therapy has been used as . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baker et al. (1950) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: