Active clinical trials for "Embolism"

Currently, guidelines and clinical practice differ considerably with respect to use of anticoagulant treatment during cast immobilization of the lower leg. Trials that have been carried out were aimed at efficacy only, had small sample sizes and therefore mainly used asymptomatic thrombosis as endpoint. From these trials an overall risk benefit-balance could not be established, hence the current controversy. In the proposed study the investigators will use relevant symptomatic endpoints in a large cohort of patients. Furthermore the investigators will follow subjects with an adverse event for a longer period, during which the investigators will assess the long term sequelae of these events. Lastly, the investigators will determine high risk groups that will benefit most from anticoagulant treatment. Objective: Comparative effectiveness research to determine cost-effectiveness of two existing policies, i.e. treatment with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) during lower leg plaster cast immobilization following surgical or conservative treatment. In addition the investigators will investigate personalized prophylaxis based on genetic and acquired risk factors.

Brigham and Women's Hospital will coordinate a Quality Improvement Initiative at other hospitals that focuses on whether physician notification prior to discharge of high risk VTE patients will reduce the incidence of VTE after hospital discharge.

Overtesting for Acute Coronary Syndrome(ACS) and Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in low risk Emergency Department(ED) patients can increase exposure of nondiseased patients to radiation, intravenous contrast and anticoagulation. This project addresses question of whether quantitative Pre-Test Probability(PTP) assessed from two validated web-based computer algorithms (the project "webtool"), can improve the diagnostic evaluation of adult patients with charted evidence of chest pain and dyspnea. After a validation phase, the main study will randomize patients to either the Standard care group or the Intervention group, which will receive the output of the ACS and PE webtool that includes the PTP estimates of ACS and PE and one of three recommendations regarding next steps: 1. No further testing, 2. Exclusion with a biomarker protocol, or 3. Immediate imaging +/- empiric anticoagulation.

The purpose of this study is to assess efficacy and safety of optional vena cava filter implanted 3 months in prevention of recurrent pulmonary embolism in patients presenting with acute pulmonary embolism associated with thrombotic risk factors

This pilot study is designed to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial comparing fondaparinux sodium (Arixtra) once daily with enoxaparin (Lovenox®) twice daily with respect to preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after bariatric surgery in obese patients.

Suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) is a frequent clinical problem and remains a diagnostic challenge. The diagnostic approach of PE relies on sequential diagnostic tests, such as plasma D-dimer measurement, multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) and pulmonary angiography. In addition, the diagnostic workup is usually stratified according to the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Clinical probability has a fair predictive accuracy either evaluated implicitly or by clinical prediction rules1 and is useful for identifying patients with a low prevalence of pulmonary embolism who can be usually fully investigated by non invasive tests.The D-dimer test has been extensively evaluated in the exclusion of pulmonary embolism, particularly in outpatients. ELISA D-dimer and second-generation latex agglutination (immuno-turbidimetric tests) have a remarkably high sensitivity and have been proved safe first-line tests in association with clinical probability to rule out pulmonary embolism in outcome studies. The clinical usefulness of D-dimer is defined by the proportion of patients in whom pulmonary embolism may be ruled out by a normal result and it is determined by the specificity. However, ELISA and second-generation latex agglutination (immuno-turbidimetric tests) tests have a quite limited overall specificity of around 35% to 40%. Therefore, many investigators tried to increase the D-dimer thresholds in particular in elderly patients to increase the rate of patients in whom the diagnosis could be excluded by this easy and inexpensive test. Several studies have shown that D-dimer levels increase with age and which turns in a decreased specificity of the D-dimer test at the usual threshold in the elderly, and thus to a less useful test to exclude PE in older patients. Indeed, ELISA D-dimer is able to rule out PE in 60% of patients aged less than 40 years, but in only 5% of patients above the age of 80.8 In this study, raising the cut-off value to various points between 600 ng/ml and 1000 ng/ml increased specificity, but this came at the cost of safety with more false negative test results. In this analysis, however, no stratification was made for clinical probability and the sample was small. Recently, the investigators retrospectively assessed the value of a progressive cut-off adjusted to age in a wide sample of 1712 patients. This "new" cut-off was defined for D-Dimer test positivity in each patient by multiplying patient's age by 10. All patients with a D-Dimer level below 500mg/ml, and all patients above 50 years whose D-Dimer levels were inferior to their age multiplied by 10 were considered as having a negative D-Dimer test. The exact derivation and validation of this "new" D-dimer cut-off is described hereafter. Using the conventional cutoff, the VIDAS® D-Dimer test was negative (below 500 mg/ml) in 512/1712 patients (29.9%) and none had PE during initial workup or the three-month follow-up period. Using the cutoff adjusted to age (cutoff for D-Dimer test positivity equals age multiplied by ten, in mg/ml), the figure was as follows. D-Dimer levels were below the adjusted cutoff in 615/1712 patients (35.9%, number needed to test 2.8). This represented a statistically significant 20.1% increase in the number of patients in whom the D-Dimer test was considered as negative, p=0.0002. Of these 615 patients, 5 had PE during initial workup (0.8%, 95 percent confidence interval 0.4 to 1.9%). These data suggest that adopting this progressive cut-off in patients above 50 years, could increase of about 20% the number of patients in whom PE could be excluded without further testing, with an acceptable safety profile as the three-month thromboembolic rate remained very low. Therefore, the investigators plan a prospective outcome study in which this progressive or "new" cut-off (age X 10 ng/ml) in patients above 50 years will be used. In this multicentre study, clinical probability will be assessed by the simplified revised Geneva revised score (Table 1) and an ELISA D-dimer test will be performed [Vidas D-Dimer Exclusion® test (Biomérieux, Marcy l'Etoile, Paris, France)]. Patients with a non high clinical probability with the simplified revised Geneva score and a normal "new" D-dimer cut-off with the Vidas D-dimer Exclusion®, (Biomerieux, Marcy l'Etoile, France) will be considered as not having PE, and will be followed for three-months to assess possible VTE recurrences. The main outcome will be the rate of thromboembolic events during a formal 3-month follow-up in patients not anticoagulated on the basis of this strategy. Patients with positive D-dimers will be investigated with MSCT as currently admitted.

The ARCH is a controlled trial with a sequential design and with a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) methodology. The objective is to compare the efficacy and tolerance (net benefit) of two antithrombotic strategies in patients with atherothrombosis of the aortic arch and a recent (less than 6 months) cerebral or peripheral embolic event. Hypothesis: The association of clopidogrel 75 mg/d plus aspirin 75 mg/d is 25% more effective than an oral anticoagulant (target International Normalized Ratio [INR] 2 to 3) in preventing brain infarction, brain hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, peripheral embolism, and vascular death.

The primary objective of this multicenter, prospective, single arm clinical trial is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the Angel® Catheter in subjects at high risk of PE, and with recognized contraindications to standard pharmacological therapy (anticoagulation).

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, event-driven, superiority study for efficacy. Patients with confirmed symptomatic DVT (Deep Vein Thrombosis) or PE (Pulmonary embolism) who completed 6 or 12 months of treatment of anticoagulation are eligible for this trial

After any surgery, there is a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), including Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) in the major veins of the legs and Pulmonary Embolus (PE) in the lungs. These clots are usually prevented by the administration of low-molecular-weight heparin, a blood thinner that prevents clotting. In most surgical specialties like thoracic or vascular surgery, this treatment is used until patients are discharged from the hospital. However, in orthopaedic surgery, there is strong evidence that longer term preventative treatment up to 35 days after hospital discharge helps to reduce VTE occurrences. In thoracic surgery, there is an even greater risk of developing PE because of the surgical stress, the common presence of cancer and direct damage to blood vessels in the lung during surgery. Despite the potential utility, the use of extended VTE prevention has never been evaluated in the thoracic surgery population. If extended treatment prevents clots, more patients will avoid complications related to VTE. There is currently very limited information available on the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients undergoing lung cancer resection and the utility of extended thromboprophylaxis (ET) in this patient population. Furthermore, in contrast to patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery where ET has become standard of care, duration of thromboprophylaxis is not well defined in this patient population. Therefore, there is a clear need to systematically evaluate the effects of extended VTE prophylaxis on the incidence of VTE in the post-op population.