Combination and comparison of two models in prognosis of pulmonary embolism: Results from TUrkey Pulmonary Embolism Group (TUPEG) study

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorOzsu, Savas
dc.contributor.authorOzlu, Tevfik
dc.contributor.authorSenturk, Aysegul
dc.contributor.authorUcar, Elif Yilmazel
dc.contributor.authorKirkil, Gamze
dc.contributor.authorKadioglu, Esra Ekbic
dc.contributor.authorAltinsoy, Bulent
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T16:18:30Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T16:18:30Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Clinical parameters, biomarkers and imaging-based risk stratification are widely accepted in pulmonary embolism(PE). The present study has investigated the prognostic role of simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI) score and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) model. Methods: This prospective cohort study included a total of 1078 patients from a multi-center registry, with objectively confirmed acute symptomatic PE. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during the first 30 days, and the secondary endpoint included all-cause mortality, nonfatal symptomatic recurrent PE, or nonfatal major bleeding. Results: Of the 1078 study patients, 95 (8.8%) diedwithin 30 days of diagnosis. There was no significant difference between non-low-risk patients ESC [12.2% (103 of 754;)] and high-risk patients as per the sPESI [11.6% (103 of 796)] for 30-day mortality. The nonfatal secondary endpoint occurred in 2.8% of patients in the the sPESI low-risk and 1.9% in the ESC low-risk group. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 2.2% of patients the sPESI low-risk and in 2.2% the ESC low-risk group (P = NS). In the present study, in the combination of the sPESI low-risk and ESC model low-risk mortality rate was 0%. Conclusions: The sPESI andthe ESCmodel showed a similar performance regarding 30-daymortality and secondary outcomes in the present study. However, the combination of these two models appears to be particularly valuable in PE. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.thromres.2014.02.032
dc.identifier.endpage1010en_US
dc.identifier.issn0049-3848
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid24690480
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84900478636
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage1006en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.thromres.2014.02.032
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/16132
dc.identifier.volume133en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000335910900010
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPergamon-Elsevier Science Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofThrombosis Research
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subject[No Keyword]en_US
dc.titleCombination and comparison of two models in prognosis of pulmonary embolism: Results from TUrkey Pulmonary Embolism Group (TUPEG) studyen_US
dc.titleCombination and comparison of two models in prognosis of pulmonary embolism: Results from TUrkey Pulmonary Embolism Group (TUPEG) study
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu