BackgroundChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after pulmonary embolism is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Understanding the incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after pulmonary embolism is important for evaluating the need for screening but is also a subject of debate because of different inclusion criteria among previous studies. We determined the incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after acute pulmonary embolism and the utility of a screening program for this disease.
Design and MethodsWe conducted a cohort screening study in an unselected series of consecutive patients (n=866) diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism between January 2001 and July 2007. All patients who had not been previously diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension (PH) and had survived until study inclusion were invited for echocardiography. Patients with echocardiographic suspicion of PH underwent complete work-up for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, including ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy and right heart catheterization.
ResultsAfter an average follow-up of 34 months of all 866 patients, PH was diagnosed in 19 patients by routine clinical care and in 10 by our screening program; 4 patients had chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, all diagnosed by routine clinical care. The cumulative incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after all cause pulmonary embolism was 0.57% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-1.2%) and after unprovoked pulmonary embolism 1.5% (95% CI 0.08-3.1%).
ConclusionsBecause of the low incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after pulmonary embolism and the very low yield of the echocardiography based screening program, wide scale implementation of prolonged follow-up including echocardiography of all patients with pulmonary embolism to detect chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension does not seem to be warranted.
We examined the relations between quantitative volumetric estimates of cerebral lesion load based on magnetization transfer imaging (MTI), clinical data, and measures of neuropsychological function in 44 patients with clinically diagnosed MS. In this population we assessed the correlation between several volumetric MTI measures, measures of neurologic function (Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale and Ambulation Index), and disease duration using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Patients were classified on the basis of neuropsychological test performance as severely impaired, moderately impaired, and normal. We assessed differences between these groups with respect to MTI results using the Kruskal-Wallis test. MTI measures corrected for brain volume were found to correlate with disease duration (p < 0.01) and showed suggestive correlations with measures of neurologic impairment (p < 0.05). Individual neuropsychological tests correlated with MTI measures corrected and not corrected for brain volume (p < 0.001). An MTI measure not corrected for brain volume differed (p < 0.05) between severely impaired, moderately impaired, and normal patients. These preliminary results suggest that volumetric MTI analysis provides new measures that reflect more accurately the global lesion load in the brain of MS patients, and they may serve as a method to study the natural course of the disease and as an outcome measure to evaluate the effect of drugs.
Exertional dyspnea is a frequent symptom in the long term clinical course of acute PE. More severe dyspnea results in decreased exercise capacity and increased burden of cardiopulmonary comorbidity. This dyspnea is likely to be unrelated to the past thromboembolic event in the vast majority of patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.