A review on management of antiphospholipid syndrome in clinical practice

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by thrombotic or obstetric events occurring in patients with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies. Thrombotic APS is characterized by venous, arterial, or microvascular thrombosis. The diagnosis is accepted when both one clinical and one laboratory criteria according to the updated Sapporo classification are established. APS may occur in combination with other autoimmune diseases, mainly systemic lupus erythematosus, or in its primary form. Long-term anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist is the standard of care for patients who develop thrombosis, considering the high rate of recurrent thrombosis. The current international guidelines are not in favor of recommending direct oral anticoagulants for secondary prevention of thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, especially in the context of arterial thrombosis and triple-positive antiphospholipid patients. The most common approach, endorsed by the American College of Chest Physicians guidelines is the combination of heparin and low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg) daily for women who fulfill the clinical and serologic criteria for obstetric APS. New potential therapeutic approaches are under evaluation but actually the anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of treatment

Role of a clinical prediction score in a chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension rule-out strategy

publishersversionPeer reviewe

Association Between Preexisting Versus Newly Identified Atrial Fibrillation and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Full list of RIETE Investigators is provided in the Appendix of this article. V.Ģībietis, D.Kigitoviča and A.Skride are mentioned in the Appendix.Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) may exist before or occur early in the course of pulmonary embolism (PE). We determined the PE outcomes based on the presence and timing of AF. Methods and Results Using the data from a multicenter PE registry, we identified 3 groups: (1) those with preexisting AF, (2) patients with new AF within 2 days from acute PE (incident AF), and (3) patients without AF. We assessed the 90-day and 1-year risk of mortality and stroke in patients with AF, compared with those without AF (reference group). Among 16 497 patients with PE, 792 had preexisting AF. These patients had increased odds of 90-day all-cause (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% CI, 2.33-3.38) and PE-related mortality (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.37-4.14) and increased 1-year hazard for ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 5.48; 95% CI, 3.10-9.69) compared with those without AF. After multivariable adjustment, preexisting AF was associated with significantly increased odds of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.57-2.32) but not PE-related mortality (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.85-2.66). Among 16 497 patients with PE, 445 developed new incident AF within 2 days of acute PE. Incident AF was associated with increased odds of 90-day all-cause (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.75-2.97) and PE-related (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.01-6.59) mortality but not stroke. Findings were similar in multivariable analyses. Conclusions In patients with acute symptomatic PE, both preexisting AF and incident AF predict adverse clinical outcomes. The type of adverse outcomes may differ depending on the timing of AF onset.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Venous Thrombosis within 30 Days after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in a Multinational Venous Thromboembolism Registry

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE)—including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST)—may occur early after vaccination against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We sought to describe the site, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of VTE after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: In a prospective study using the Registro Informatizado de Enfermedad TromboEmbólica (RIETE) platform, patients with VTE 4–30 days after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (1 February 2021 through 30 April 2021) were included. VTE patients recruited from the same centers into RIETE in the same months in 2018–2019 were selected as the reference group. All-cause mortality and major bleeding were the main study outcomes. Results: As of 30 April 2020, 102 patients with post-vaccination VTEs had been identified (28 after adenovirus-based vaccination [ChAdOx1 nCov-19; AstraZeneca] and 74 after mRNA-based vaccination [mRNA-1273; Moderna, and BNT162b2; Pfizer]). Compared with 911 historical controls, patients with VTE after adenovirus-based vaccination more frequently had CVST (10.7% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001) or thrombosis at multiple sites (17.9% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001), more frequently had thrombocytopenia (40.7% vs. 14.7%, p < 0.001), and had higher 14-day mortality (14.3% vs. 0.7%; odds ratio [OR]: 25.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7–94.9) and major bleeding rates (10.3% vs. 1.0%, OR: 12.03, 95% CI: 3.07–47.13). The site of thrombosis, accompanying thrombocytopenia, and 14-day mortality rates were not significantly different for patients with VTE after mRNA-based vaccination, compared with historical controls. Conclusions: Compared with historical controls, VTE after adenovirus-based vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is accompanied by thrombocytopenia, occurs in unusual sites, and is associated with worse clinical outcomes

Association Between Preexisting Versus Newly Identified Atrial Fibrillation and Outcomes of Patients With Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) may exist before or occur early in the course of pulmonary embolism (PE). We determined the PE outcomes based on the presence and timing of AF. Methods and Results Using the data from a multicenter PE registry, we identified 3 groups: (1) those with preexisting AF, (2) patients with new AF within 2 days from acute PE (incident AF), and (3) patients without AF. We assessed the 90-day and 1-year risk of mortality and stroke in patients with AF, compared with those without AF (reference group). Among 16 497 patients with PE, 792 had preexisting AF. These patients had increased odds of 90-day all-cause (odds ratio [OR], 2.81; 95% CI, 2.33-3.38) and PE-related mortality (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.37-4.14) and increased 1-year hazard for ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 5.48; 95% CI, 3.10-9.69) compared with those without AF. After multivariable adjustment, preexisting AF was associated with significantly increased odds of all-cause mortality (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.57-2.32) but not PE-related mortality (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.85-2.66). Among 16 497 patients with PE, 445 developed new incident AF within 2 days of acute PE. Incident AF was associated with increased odds of 90-day all-cause (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.75-2.97) and PE-related (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 2.01-6.59) mortality but not stroke. Findings were similar in multivariable analyses. Conclusions In patients with acute symptomatic PE, both preexisting AF and incident AF predict adverse clinical outcomes. The type of adverse outcomes may differ depending on the timing of AF onset.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Stress-Scintigraphy versus contrast stress-echocardiography for prediction of hard cardiac events

Objectives: We compared the long-term prognosis of subjects without prior cardiac disease who underwent either vasodilator single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) or contrast stress-echocardiography (cSE) for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Background: The routine use of ultrasound contrast media during cSE improves wall motion assessment and test feasibility, but the prognostic value of cSE in comparison with SPECT is not known. Methods: Subjects who underwent vasodilator SPECT or cSE between 2008 and 2012 for suspected CAD but no history of cardiac disease were included. We compared the prognostic value of each method for combined all-cause death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, and their positive predictive value for angiographically obstructive CAD. Results: 1387 subjects were selected, 497 who underwent SPECT and 890 cSE. During 4 years of mean follow-up there were 78 hard events in the cSE group and 51 in the SPECT group. Event-free survival in subjects testing positive for ischemia, either with SPECT or cSE, was significantly worse both in the overall population and after propensity-matching patients 1:1 for baseline characteristics (p=0.032 for SPECT and p<0.001 for cSE). In multivariable analyses (entire group or splitted SPECT or cSE subgroups) SPECT or cSE demonstrated significant stratification capability, an ischemic test doubling (SPECT) or more than doubling (cSE) the risk of future hard events independently from other variables. Positive predictive value of SPECT for the diagnosis of obstructive CAD was inferior to cSE, (PPV=63% vs 89% respectively, p<0.001). Conclusion: Our study suggests that SPECT and cSE have comparable significant prognostic capability, with cSE demonstrating better diagnostic positive predictive value for CAD. The absence of ionizing radiation and anticipated lower direct and also indirect costs from higher positive predictive value, suggest that cSE may be preferable to SPECT as a gatekeeper in subjects without a prior history of CAD