O. Shafe, J. Moosavi, A. Alizadehasl, H. Pouraliakbar, B. Naghavi, Sepehr Jamalkhani, Sajjad Rezaei, K. Rezaei-Kalantari, Melody Farrashi, M. Naghshbandi, Parham Rabiei, M. Maleki, H. Talakoob, Maryam Salehi, M. Malakouti, Parham Sadeghipour
{"title":"登记实施对肺栓塞患者管理和生存的影响","authors":"O. Shafe, J. Moosavi, A. Alizadehasl, H. Pouraliakbar, B. Naghavi, Sepehr Jamalkhani, Sajjad Rezaei, K. Rezaei-Kalantari, Melody Farrashi, M. Naghshbandi, Parham Rabiei, M. Maleki, H. Talakoob, Maryam Salehi, M. Malakouti, Parham Sadeghipour","doi":"10.4103/rcm.rcm_4_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":21031,"journal":{"name":"Research in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":"40 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of registry implementation on the management and survival of patients with pulmonary embolism\",\"authors\":\"O. Shafe, J. Moosavi, A. Alizadehasl, H. Pouraliakbar, B. Naghavi, Sepehr Jamalkhani, Sajjad Rezaei, K. Rezaei-Kalantari, Melody Farrashi, M. Naghshbandi, Parham Rabiei, M. Maleki, H. Talakoob, Maryam Salehi, M. Malakouti, Parham Sadeghipour\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/rcm.rcm_4_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21031,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"40 - 44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/rcm.rcm_4_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/rcm.rcm_4_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
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 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.