Abstract
Background Current guidelines suggest treating cancer patients with incidental pulmonary embolism (PE) similar to those with clinically-suspected and confirmed PE. However, the natural history of these presentations has not been thoroughly compared.
Methods We used the data from the RIETE registry to compare the 3-month outcomes in patients with active cancer and incidental PE versus those with clinically-suspected and confirmed PE. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were PE-related mortality, symptomatic PE recurrences and major bleeding.
Results From July 2012 to January 2019, 946 cancer patients with incidental asymptomatic PE and 2274 with clinically-suspected and confirmed PE were enrolled. Most patients (95% versus 90%) received low-molecular-weight heparin therapy. During the first 90 days, 598 patients died, including 42 from PE. Patients with incidental PE had a lower all-cause mortality rate than those with suspected and confirmed PE (11% versus 22%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.43; 95%CI: 0.34–0.54). Results were consistent for PE-related mortality (0.3% versus 1.7%; OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06–0.59). Multivariable analysis confirmed that patients with incidental PE were at lower risk to die (adjusted OR: 0.43; 95%CI: 0.34–0.56). Overall, 29 patients (0.9%) developed symptomatic PE recurrences, and 122 (3.8%) had major bleeding. There were no significant differences in PE recurrences (OR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.25–1.54) or major bleeding (OR: 0.78; 95%CI: 0.51–1.18).
Conclusions Cancer patients with incidental PE had a lower mortality rate than those with clinically-suspected and confirmed PE. Further studies are required to validate these findings, and to explore optimal management strategies in these patients.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the European Respiratory Journal. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJ online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Girkin reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Ena Therapeutics Pty Ltd, during the conduct of the study; In addition, Dr. Girkin has a patent PCT/AU2018/050295 issued.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Peris has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. López-Nuñez has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Maestre has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Jiménez has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Muriel has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Bikdeli reports and He is a consulting expert, on behalf of the plaintiff, for litigation related to a specific type of IVC filters.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Weinberg has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Ay has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Mazzolai has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Lorenzo has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Monreal has nothing to disclose.
- Received July 10, 2020.
- Accepted November 30, 2020.
- Copyright ©ERS 2020