Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan;110(1):88-98.
doi: 10.1111/ejh.13877. Epub 2022 Oct 21.

Incidental pulmonary embolism in cancer and noncancer patients: Prospective cohort study

Affiliations

Incidental pulmonary embolism in cancer and noncancer patients: Prospective cohort study

Ewa M Wysokinska et al. Eur J Haematol. 2023 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Clinical picture and outcome of incidental pulmonary embolism (iPE) compared to symptomatic pulmonary embolism (sPE) remain unclear.

Methods: Demographics, recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), mortality, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were compared between iPE and sPE patients who were followed prospectively at Mayo Thrombophilia Clinic (March 1, 2013 to August 1, 2020).

Results: Out of 3576 VTE patients, 1417 (39.6%) had PE: 562 (39.7%) iPE and 855 sPE. Patients with cancer were more likely to have iPE (400 iPE vs. 314 sPE) compared to those without cancer (162 iPE vs. 541 sPE). VTE recurrence rate (all per 100 person-years) was similar in all iPE and sPE patients (3.34 vs. 3.68, p = .50), with cancer (4.16 vs. 4.89, p = .370), and without cancer patients (0.89 vs. 2.80, p = .25). Higher mortality observed in all patients with iPE compared to sPE (46.45 vs. 23.47, p < .001) and with cancer (56.41 vs. 45.77, p = .03) became not significant after adjustment for age, antiplatelet therapy, metastases, and cancer location. Noncancer iPE patients had higher mortality (15.95 vs. 7.18, p = .006) even after adjustment (p = .05). The major bleeding rate was also higher in all patients iPE compared to sPE (7.10 vs. 3.68, p = .03), but not after adjustment (p = .974); higher major bleeding rate in noncancer patients (6.49 vs. 1.25, p = .007) remained significant after adjustment (.02). CRNMB rate was similar to iPE and sPE patients.

Conclusion: iPE represents a more serious clinical condition compared to sPE as indicated by the higher mortality and major bleeding but these differences reflect underlying comorbidities rather than the seriousness of the embolic event.

Keywords: cancer-associated thrombosis; incidental pulmonary embolism; venous thromboembolism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

REFERENCES

    1. Di Nisio M, Lee AY, Carrier M, Liebman HA, Khorana AA, Subcommittee on Haemostasis and Malignancy. Diagnosis and treatment of incidental venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13:880-883.
    1. Grosse SD, Nelson RE, Nyarko KA, Richardson LC, Raskob GE. The economic burden of incident venous thromboembolism in the United States: a review of estimated attributable healthcare costs. Thromb Res. 2016;137:3-10.
    1. van der Hulle T, den Exter PL, Planquette B, et al. Risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major hemorrhage in cancer-associated incidental pulmonary embolism among treated and untreated patients: a pooled analysis of 926 patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2016;14(1):105-113.
    1. Kraaijpoel N, Bleker SM, Meyer G, et al. Treatment and long-term clinical outcomes of incidental pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer: an international prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(20):1713-1720.
    1. Qdaisat A, Kamal M, Al-Breiki A, et al. Clinical characteristics, management, and outcome of incidental pulmonary embolism in cancer patients. Blood Adv. 2020;4(8):1606-1614.

LinkOut - more resources