Impact of registry implementation on the management and survival of patients with pulmonary embolism
Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major public health concern, with a considerable mortality rate. In the present study, we have evaluated the impact of registry implementation on PE management. Methods: In the present single-center study, composed of two distinct cohorts, we have evaluated t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Research in cardiovascular medicine 2021-04, Vol.10 (2), p.40-44 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major public health concern, with a considerable mortality rate. In the present study, we have evaluated the impact of registry implementation on PE management. Methods: In the present single-center study, composed of two distinct cohorts, we have evaluated the impact of registry implementation (prospective arm-September 2015 to August 2018) on patient management and survival, and compared it with the same duration when no registry was implied (retrospective arm-September 2012 to August 2015). Results: One hundred and seventy and 182 patients were recruited in the prospective and retrospective arms, respectively. Guideline-recommended risk stratification was significantly overlooked before the introduction of PE registry (100% vs. 45.6% prospective and retrospective arms, respectively [P < 0.001]). A trend toward higher administration of thrombolytic therapy was noted in patients admitted during the registry time (20 [64.5%] vs. 3 [37.5%], P = 0.166). The registry had also significant impact on length of hospital stay (6.72 ± 4.39 days versus 9.35 ± 5.55, P = 0.001, in prospective and retrospective arms, respectively). No significant difference was detected on the 6-month all-cause mortality. However, re-venous thromboembolism was significantly reduced during registry time (2 [1.2%) vs. 22 [12.2%], P < 0.001). Finally, significantly more patients underwent guideline-recommended follow-up during the registry time (107 [72.3%] vs. 30 [16.5%], P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our study showed the implementation of registry had significant effect on PE-related outcome and might have direct impact on burden of pulmonary emboli on the healthcare system. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2251-9572 2251-9580 |
DOI: | 10.4103/rcm.rcm_4_21 |