1,721,375 research outputs found

    The direct oral anticoagulants may also be effective against the risk of post-thrombotic syndrome

    No full text
    The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limbs occurring in 40–50% of patients (1). Impaired thrombus resolution with persistent obstruction is involved in the pathogenesis of PTS, similarly to chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), which however develops only in a small minority of subjects after pulmonary embolism (PE)(2). Both PTS and CTEPH are associated with substantial morbidity and high healthcare expenses (2). PTS epidemiology reflects that of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is estimated to affect 104–183 subjects per 100,000 person-years among Caucasians (3, 4), encompassing PE and DVT, with an incidence ranging from 29 to 78 and 45 to 117, per 100,000 person-years, respectively (5, 6). PTS can occur in severe forms in 10% and with the development of leg ulcers in 1–3% of patients (1). Leg ulcers ..

    Subsegmental pulmonary embolism. Is the emperor still naked?

    No full text
    The clinical role of imaging techniques in subsegmental pulmonary embolism is discusse

    Oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and risk of bleeding. A Multicenter Inception Cohort Study

    No full text
    Oral anticoagulants (OA) are the drug of choice for stroke prevention in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation (NRAF). This clear benefit/risk ratio comes from several randomized clinical trials (RCT) in which highly selected patients were strictly monitored. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether the safety of OA was also obtained outside the setting of clinical trials in consecutive patients starting treatment and routinely followed at Italian anticoagulation clinics. A total of 433 patients with NRAF were enrolled in the ISCOAT study and followed up for a mean of 1.4 years. Two patients (0.3% per year) suffered from a complete non-fatal ischemic stroke, 8 patients (1.3% per year) died of thrombosis-related vascular death, and 11 patients (11 events, 1.8% per year) suffered from major bleedings (2 fatal). Major bleeding occurred more frequently in patients >75 years of age (6 events, 5.1% per year) than in younger patients (5 events, 1.0% per year). The cumulative incidence of major bleeding in patients over 75 years of age (10.8%; 95% CI, 1.8-19.8) was significantly higher than in younger patients (2.8%; 95% CI, 0.3-5.3, p = 0.006). Major primary bleeding unrelated to organic lesions (7 patients, 1 male and 6 females) occurred in 5 elderly patients (>75 years old) with a cumulative incidence (9.6%; 95% CI 0.8-18.4) significantly higher than in younger patients (1.2%; 95% CI, 0-3.0, p = 0.0003). Univariate analysis revealed a higher frequency of major primary bleeding in females, in diabetic patients and in in those who had suffered a previous thromboembolic event. Multivariate analysis revealed that only age grater than 75 years was independently related to major primary bleedings (RR 6.6; 95% CI 1.2-37, p = 0.032). Minor bleedings (n = 27) were not more frequent in elderly patients (6% vs 4% per year, p = ns). Patients were kept at optimal intensity of treatment for 63% of the time. These data confirm the efficacy of OA but identify elderly patients as a high risk group of major bleeding

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore