Left atrial thrombus under dabigatran in a patient with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Dabigatran is a new direct competitive inhibitor of thrombin and is equally effective and safe as warfarin in the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. We present a case of a 60-year-old man with persistent nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who switched from acenocoumarol to dabigatran 110 mg twice daily. After five months the patient developed a large atrial thrombus, occlusion of the tibial arteries of the right foot, cerebellar infarction and multiple infarctions in kidneys and spleen. Blood test showed a dabigatran concentration of 35 ng/ml six hours after intake, correlating with a low trough concentration of 24-27 ng/mL and significantly increased thromboembolic risk. Other risk factors for thromboembolism were excluded. The present case indicates that in selected patients, there might be an indication for dose adjustments based on serum levels of dabigatran to ensure patient efficacy (thromboembolic events) and safety (bleeding).

Accuracy of X-ray with perfusion scan in young patients with suspected pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) has become the standard test in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). However, young patients may have an increased risk of cancer with CTPA. Perfusion scanning combined with chest X-ray (X/Q) may offer an adequate alternative, but has never been prospectively validated. We directly compared this strategy with CTPA in patients aged ≤50years with suspected PE. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a likely clinical probability or an abnormal D-dimer level underwent both CTPA and X/Q. Two trained and experienced nuclear physicians independently analyzed the X/Q-scans. The accuracy of X/Q according to the PISAPED criteria was calculated in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were included, with a PE rate of 33%. The inter-observer agreement for X/Q-scan reading was high (κ=0.89). After consensus reading, 21 patients (28%) were categorized as 'PE present', 53 (70%) as 'PE absent', and two (2.6%) as 'non-diagnostic'. In 22%, there was a discrepancy between the X/Q-scan and CPTA for the diagnosis or exclusion of PE. The PPV and NPV were 71% and 83%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with a high risk of PE, a diagnostic strategy of chest X-ray and perfusion scanning using the PISAPED criteria seems less safe than CTPA. Additional studies should further investigate this diagnostic algorithm.

Hestia criteria can safely select patients with pulmonary embolism for outpatient treatment irrespective of right ventricular function.

BACKGROUND: There has been debate over how patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) can be safely selected for outpatient treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare the Hestia criteria with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) criteria for selecting low-risk patients with PE for outpatient treatment. METHODS: From 2008 to 2010, 496 patients with acute, symptomatic PE were screened and 275 treated at home and 221 treated in the hospital according to the Hestia Study protocol. The Hestia criteria were used to select patients for outpatient treatment. Right and left ventricular (RV and LV) diameters were measured on computed tomography images. RV dysfunction was defined as an RV/LV ratio > 1.0. Patients were classified according to the ESC criteria into low, intermediate and high-risk groups, based on blood pressure and RV dysfunction. During 3 months follow-up adverse events were scored. RESULTS: Adverse events occurred in 22 patients (4.5%) treated in the hospital vs. none of the patients treated at home (P < 0.001). Sensitivity and negative predictive value for adverse outcome were 100% for the Hestia criteria and 96% and 99% for the ESC criteria, respectively. Of the patients treated at home according to the Hestia criteria, 35% were normotensive but had RV dysfunction and were classified as intermediate risk according to the ESC criteria. No adverse events happened in these patients treated at home. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical criteria, such as the Hestia criteria, could be helpful in selecting patients, including those with RV dysfunction who have a low risk of adverse clinical outcome and could be candidates for outpatient treatment.