scholarly journals THE COMBINATION OF INFERIOR VENA CAVA AND E/E’ IS A POWERFUL INDEX OF THE DETERIORATION OF RENAL FUNCTION AND THE PROGNOSIS AFTER A FIRST ST-ELEVATION ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION

2010 ◽  
Vol 55 (10) ◽  
pp. A86.E812
Author(s):  
Noriaki Iwahashi ◽  
Masami Kosuge ◽  
Jun Okuda ◽  
Kengo Tsukahara ◽  
Yoshio Tahara ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 204589401988263
Author(s):  
Muhammad H. Gul ◽  
Zin M. Htun ◽  
Joseph Rigdon ◽  
Belinda Rivera-Lebron ◽  
Vinicio de Jesus Perez

Background: Previous observational studies suggest that inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with congestive heart failure, mechanical ventilation, and shock may have a mortality benefit. We sought to analyze the survival benefits of inferior vena cava filter in pulmonary embolism patients complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring treatment with thrombolytics. Methods: This retrospective observational study used hospital discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample Data (NIS). ICD-9-CM coding was used to identify complicated pulmonary embolism patients (N = 254,465) in NIS from 2002 to 2014, including the subgroups of acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, and thrombolytics. Inferior vena cava filter recipients were 1:1 propensity score-matched on age, sex, race, deep vein thrombosis, Elixhauser comorbidities, and other pulmonary embolism comorbidities (45 covariates) to non-inferior vena cava filter recipients in complicated pulmonary embolism patients and separately in each subgroup. Clinical outcomes were compared between the inferior vena cava filter group and the non-inferior vena cava filter group. Results: Mortality rate in complicated pulmonary embolism patients with inferior vena cava filter placement was lower (20.9% vs. 33%; NNT = 8.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.91–8.69, E-value = 2.53) and in the subgroups; acute myocardial infarction (17.9% vs. 30.1%; NNT = 8.19, 95% CI 7.52–8.92, E-value = 2.76), acute respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 29.7%; NNT = 9.76, 95% CI 8.67–11.16, E-value = 2.38), shock (30.7% vs. 47.1%; NNT = 6.08, 95% CI 5.73–6.47, E-value = 2.43), and with the use of thrombolytics (7% vs. 12.9 %; NNT 17.1, 95% CI 14.88–20.12, E-value = 3.01) ( p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion: Inferior vena cava filter placement in pulmonary embolism complicated with acute myocardial infarction, acute respiratory failure, shock, or requiring thrombolytic therapy was associated with reduced mortality.


2010 ◽  
Vol 74 (8) ◽  
pp. 1651-1657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Maruhashi ◽  
Masaharu Ishihara ◽  
Ichirou Inoue ◽  
Takuji Kawagoe ◽  
Yuji Shimatani ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 34 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. P3946-P3946
Author(s):  
A. Karanasos ◽  
R. J. Van Geuns ◽  
N. Van Mieghem ◽  
C. Schultz ◽  
J. Ligthart ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Clarissa Campo Dall’Orto ◽  
Rubens Pierry Ferreira Lopes ◽  
Luiz Daniel Silva de Oliveira ◽  
Giovanni Cisari ◽  
Alexandre de Souza Marques ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document