[Roles of the general practitioner and the vascular medicine physician for patient education concerning venous thromboembolism: The patient's perspective]. / Évaluation par le patient du rôle du médecin traitant et du médecin vasculaire dans l'information médicale des patients souffrant d'une maladie thromboembolique veineuse.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism and deep-vein thrombosis) is a frequent, serious but also chronic disease. Studies reported that both general practitioners (GPs) and vascular medicine physicians (VMPs) report participating in patient education concerning venous thromboembolic disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of GPs and VMPs in venous thromboembolic disease patient education, examining the patient's perspective. METHOD: Phone survey of the French patients recruited in the CACTUS trial assessing anticoagulant treatment in case of first distal deep-vein thrombosis. RESULTS: Among the 103 participating patients, 92% (n=95) reported being satisfied by information provided by the GP and VMP. Information was considered as necessary in 96% of cases (n=99). Eighty-five percent of patients (n=88) felt they did not need complementary information. The VMP would have spent more time on education as compared with the GP (an entire consultation in 93.2% vs. 38.8% of cases respectively) the information provided by the VMP being also clearer and more complete. More than 75% of patients reported that no physician warned them about risks of anticoagulants, long-term complications of venous thromboembolic disease or its prevention. CONCLUSION: In CACTUS, patients reported being satisfied by information provided by their managing physicians and information provided by the VMP was clearer and more complete. Important education messages may not have been delivered suggesting the need for a standardization of venous thromboembolic disease patient's education.

[Home care for acute pulmonary embolism: Feasibility and general practitioner acceptability]. / Évaluation de l'acceptabilité du point de vue du médecin traitant et de la faisabilité de la prise en charge ambulatoire de l'embolie pulmonaire.

BACKGROUND: In France, initial management of pulmonary embolism (PE) is performed in the hospital setting. The latest international guidelines suggest that PE at low risk of mortality can be treated in the ambulatory care setting. This means that ambulatory care pathways and general practitioner (GP) opinions concerning such a change in practice need to be determined. OBJECTIVES: To determine: (1) rate of patients eligible for an ambulatory management of their PE and reasons for hospitalization of PE at low risk of mortality; (2) acceptability for GPs of PE home care and patient's desired care pathway. METHODS: Two-part prospective observational study conducted in Montpellier University Hospital from May 2012 to August 2013: (1) in-hospital study including all consecutive patients with non-hospital acquired PE; (2) telephonic survey on PE patient's ambulatory care pathway conducted among GPs. RESULTS: In-hospital study: 99.1% (n=211) of included patients were hospitalized and only 14.1% (n=30) had all criteria for home care. Patient's pathway survey: 68.3% (n=112) of GPs, particularly those aged 40-54 years and those who had already managed patients alone after hospital discharge, were in favour of home care for PE. One hundred and thirty-nine (84.8%) GPs wanted a collaborative management with an expert thrombosis physician and an outpatient follow-up visit at one week. CONCLUSION: Few patients managed at Montpellier University Hospital are eligible for ambulatory management of their PE. GPs have a favorable opinion of home care for PE if it is conducted in collaboration with an expert thrombosis physician.

Prevalence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after acute pulmonary embolism. Prevalence of CTEPH after pulmonary embolism.

Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) has been estimated to occur in 0.1-0.5% of patients who survive a pulmonary embolism (PE), but more recent prospective studies suggest that its incidence may be much higher. The absence of initial haemodynamic evaluation at the time of PE should explain this discrepancy. We performed a prospective multicentre study including patients with PE in order to assess the prevalence and to describe risk factors of CTEPH. Follow-up every year included an evaluation of dyspnea and echocardiography using a predefined algorithm. In case of suspected CTEPH, the diagnosis was confirmed using right heart catheterisation (RHC). Signs of CTEPH were searched on the multidetector computed tomography (CT) and echocardiography performed at the time of PE. Of the 146 patients analysed, eight patients (5.4%) had suspected CTEPH during a median follow-up of 26 months. CTEPH was confirmed using RHC in seven cases (4.8%; 95%CI, 2.3 - 9.6) and ruled-out in one. Patients with CTEPH were older, had more frequently previous venous thromboembolic events and more proximal PE than those without CTEPH. At the time of PE diagnosis, patients with CTEPH had a higher systolic pulmonary artery pressure and at least two signs of CTEPH on the initial CT. After acute PE, the prevalence of CTEPH appears high. However, initial echocardiography and CT data at the time of the index PE suggest that a majority of patients with CTEPH had previously unknown pulmonary hypertension, indicating that a first clinical presentation of CTEPH may mimic acute PE.