Copyright ©ERS Journals Ltd 2008 Pulmonary embolism at home1 Pneumology Dept, Virgen del Rocío Hospital, Seville, and 2 Pneumology Dept, Ramón y Cajal Hospital, Madrid, Spain. To the Editors: We wish to express serious concern about an article in a recent issue of the European Respiratory Journal, in which Davies et al. 1 reported on an outpatient treatment study in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). In this study 1, the authors identified criteria for the safe discharge of PE patients, and these criteria were validated in a series of 157 patients with confirmed PE. At the end of acute low-molecular-weight heparin treatment, there were no in-hospital adverse events (thromboembolic recurrences, bleeding complications or deaths). First, some variables that have been associated with prognosis in patients with PE were not considered by the clinicians responsible for patient care. Data from large observational studies of PE have confirmed systolic arterial hypotension as the most significant prognostic indicator of outcome in PE patients 2, 3, but this was not an explicit exclusion criterion in the study of Davies et al. 1. Conversely, deep venous thrombosis has been associated with prognosis in one study 4, but not in another 5. Secondly, the number of adverse events in both phases of the study was extremely low as compared with any treatment trial 6 or PE registry 3. For example, the 30-day mortality rate of the PE severity index low risk strata has ranged from 1.4 7 to 3.1% 8.
The present authors validated this score in a prospective series of 805 consecutive patients with an objective diagnosis of acute symptomatic PE. Of these, 350 patients were excluded due to the presence of proximal deep venous thrombosis. Additional patients were excluded due to active bleeding (n = 19), previous PE (n = 44), hypotension (n = 17), hypoxaemia (n = 162), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 9), congestive heart failure (n = 8) and haemodynamic instability (n = 6). The prevalence of adverse events during the first 10 days of treatment in the remaining 190 (24%) patients is shown in table 1
We share the idea that a highly selected group of pulmonary embolism patients could be treated at home. However, data from the literature cause us to exercise caution when interpreting the results of this study 1. We are concerned that an excessively optimistic message diverges from the complex reality of pulmonary embolism patients. Statement of interest None declared.
REFERENCES
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||