Share this article

 Email

 Print

 

Republish this article

The text of this article by Futurity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License.

More
Health & Medicine

Mouse brains differ if dad was stressed out

Poetry lets doctors see human side of dementia

This chemical keeps naked mole rats cancer-free

Dyslexia: Not the only reading disorder

After lung transplant, diabetes ups death risk

Facebook status boosts organ donors

Gene makes heart stronger without exercise

Tough guts of female mice point to colitis

To protect jockeys, protect horses first

A series of three research articles on pulmonary embolism published in the American Journal of Medicine are based on a study of more than two million patients suffering from the sometimes deadly clots that travel to the lungs and block arteries.

A second article finds that vena cava filters do save lives when a patient is unstable, is in shock, or in need of a ventilator.

A third paper stresses it is crucial that unstable patients with a pulmonary embolism, receive clot-dissolving medications known as thrombolytic therapy.

The studies provide clearer guidance on what treatments are most effective for patients, specifically in regard to vena cava filters and thrombolytic therapy, says Paul Stein, professor of osteopathic medical specialties at Michigan State University.

“There has been an increase in the use of vena cava filters in the past several years for patients who arrive at a hospital suffering from a pulmonary embolism. But it appears the vast majority of filters that are placed in patients with pulmonary embolism may not reduce mortality.”

For the small proportion of patients who arrive at a hospital in an unstable condition the data suggest mortality can be greatly reduced with a filter.

“These studies provide strong evidence on when filters reduce mortality and when they will not,” he says. “Only a small percentage of patients suffering from a pulmonary embolism are in shock or in need of ventilation support, and therefore only a small proportion need a filter.”

For unstable patients it is vital that in addition to using a filter, they receive thrombolytic therapy, which is much less of a risk than the surgical removal of a clot known as an embolectomy.

“Only about a third of unstable patients receive thrombolytic therapy,” he says. “The reason may be doctors are afraid that patients will suffer from excessive bleeding. But the data show thrombolytic therapy would save lives if used more frequently.”

As for an embolectormy, Stein’s team found that in most surgical centers, unless the clinicians are highly specialized and experienced, the mortality rate is high. In most hands, he says, thrombolytic therapy would save more lives.

The findings were from a nationwide government database, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, and included data on more than two million patients who suffered a pulmonary embolism between 1999 and 2008.

More news from Michigan State University: http://news.msu.edu/