FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2979803669> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2979803669 abstract "Abstract Abstract 2259 Background: Venous thrombosis is a common disease and long term anticoagulation is effective in the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Studies to detect residual vein obstruction (RVO) performed at the end of the anticoagulation period has been investigated as a predictive marker for recurrent thrombotic risk. The value of this test has been questioned, and different methodologies, different patient populations, and varying lengths of prior anticoagulation may be responsible for the disparate results published. In order to assess the true predictive worth of RVO we performed a meta-analysis of published studies to determine whether RVO can predict the risk of recurrent VTE. Methods: A comprehensive literature search with the terms “deep vein thrombosis”, “residual vein thrombosis“, and “recurrent venous thromboembolism” was performed on PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane dataset, Science Direct and CINAHL. Clinical trials published in English between January 1990 and December 2011 were eligible for this analysis. The selection of abstracts was based on the following criteria: studies had to be prospective, VTE patients had to have been anticoagulated with unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin or warfarin for at least 6 weeks, and the presence of RVO and recurrent thromboembolic events had to have been recorded. The diagnosis of RVO was allowed if 1) a venous thrombosis of >2mm was present 2) the thrombus occupied >40% of vein diameter or 3) the presence of positive thrombosis on duplex was noted. Recurrent events were defined if a new contralateral deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a new ipsilateral DVT (if the prior DVT was documented to be recanalised) or a new PE (documented by perfusion scan, Computed Tomographic Angiography or pulmonary angiography) was noted. Data were analyzed with STATS Direct meta-analysis software. Analyses were performed for the whole VTE population as well as for unprovoked and provoked VTE cohorts. A sub-analysis of patients with cancer within the provoked cohort was performed. Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for individual studies and Forrest plots were generated. Results: We identified 1955 potential publications, of which 28 were relevant. Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. 4546 patients, mean age 61years, with 3476 events were included. Five studies were prospective studies which recruited patients with only primary VTE, four studies examined secondary VTE only and four studies investigated both primary and secondary VTE. For all patients with VTE, primary and secondary, the presence of RVO was associated with a significantly higher recurrent VTE risk (OR 1.93. 95%CI: 1.29 –2.89, p = 0.001). When analyzed separately for primary VTE, RVO did not demonstrate a statistically significant increased recurrent VTE risk (OR 1.38, 95%CI: 0.87 – 2.08), results consistent with prior observations. When results were analyzed for patients with secondary VTE, the OR was 2.78 (95% CI: 1.4 – 5.5, p= 0.003). However, when patients with cancer were eliminated from the secondary VTE cohort, the OR decreased to 1.73 and was no longer significant (95% CI: 0.82 – 3.66). In contrast, for the two studies with cancer patients, the odds ratio for recurrent VTE given a positive RVO study was 5.14 (95% CI: 1.59 – 16.65 p = 0.006). While RVO studies showed recanalization and/or normalization after 6 months in 93% of post-operative patients, recanalization occurred in only 53% of patients who were treated for cancer, only 20% of patients with active cancer had negative RVO studies. Conclusions: A meta-analysis of 13 studies examining the predictive value of RVO studies did not detect significant utility for patients with primary VTE. RVO predicted recurrence in secondary VTE but subset analysis demonstrated that RVO seems to have predictive value primarily in the subgroup of patients with cancer. Current ACCP and NCCN guidelines for thrombosis in cancer differ in their recommemdation for duration of anticoagulation but both recommend extended anticoagulant therapy. A negative RVO study might reliably predict a group which might not need extended anticoagulation. Further prospective clinical trials are needed determining the utility of RVO in cancer patients with VTE. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare." @default.
• W2979803669 created "2019-10-18" @default.
• W2979803669 creator A5017262300 @default.
• W2979803669 creator A5042383153 @default.
• W2979803669 creator A5048939308 @default.
• W2979803669 creator A5056354028 @default.
• W2979803669 creator A5078617528 @default.
• W2979803669 date "2012-11-16" @default.
• W2979803669 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W2979803669 title "Residual Vein Obstruction (RVO) Predicts Recurrence for Cancer Patients with Secondary VTE: A Meta-Analysis." @default.
• W2979803669 doi "https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.v120.21.2259.2259" @default.
• W2979803669 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2979803669 type Work @default.
• W2979803669 sameAs 2979803669 @default.
• W2979803669 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2979803669 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2979803669 hasAuthorship W2979803669A5017262300 @default.
• W2979803669 hasAuthorship W2979803669A5042383153 @default.
• W2979803669 hasAuthorship W2979803669A5048939308 @default.
• W2979803669 hasAuthorship W2979803669A5056354028 @default.
• W2979803669 hasAuthorship W2979803669A5078617528 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2776301958 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2776884760 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2777557582 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2778555097 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2778959117 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2779161974 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2780011451 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2780868729 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C2781362458 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C126322002 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C141071460 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2776301958 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2776884760 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2777557582 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2778555097 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2778959117 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2779161974 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2780011451 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2780868729 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C2781362458 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C71924100 @default.
• W2979803669 hasConceptScore W2979803669C95190672 @default.
• W2979803669 hasLocation W29798036691 @default.
• W2979803669 hasOpenAccess W2979803669 @default.
• W2979803669 hasPrimaryLocation W29798036691 @default.
• W2979803669 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2979803669 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2979803669 magId "2979803669" @default.
• W2979803669 workType "article" @default.