Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :2760
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate Here
 »   Next article
 »   Previous article
 »   Table of Contents

Resource Links
 »   Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »   Citation Manager
 »   Access Statistics
 »   Reader Comments
 »   Email Alert *
 »   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3516    
    Printed125    
    Emailed5    
    PDF Downloaded406    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal

 

 MINI SYMPOSIUM: SUPPORTIVE CARE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 49  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 119-124

Pulmonary embolism in cancer patients


Department of General Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
A A Dhir
Department of General Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-509X.98936

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is rare in the Indian population and is under-reported in patients with malignancy. We studied the clinical profile and outcome of patients with PE and cancer in the Indian population. Materials and Methods: Data of cancer patients with PE, admitted in a tertiary cancer centre, was analyzed. The prevalence of PE was calculated as the number of patients with PE per 10,000 hospital admissions. The demographic data, details of cancer, co-morbidities, details of PE, and treatment given for PE and their outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Results: There were 56,425 hospital admissions in the study period. The prevalence of PE was 6.4 per 10,000 hospital admissions .Thirty-six cancer patients were diagnosed to have PE. In females, gynecological malignancies (36.84%) and in males gastrointestinal, head and neck cancers, and hematological malignancies were the most common sites (17.7% each). PE was associated with DVT in 41.7%. Dyspnea was the most common presenting symptom. Five patients (13.88%) were asymptomatic and were incidentally detected to have PE . The most common echocardiographic finding was right ventricular dysfunction (55.55%). Mortality among the treated patients was 22% (7 / 31) and in untreated patients it was 80% (4 / 5). The factors that had an impact on a three-month survival were, the presence of massive PE (P = 0.019) and the presence of RV dysfunction at presentation (P = 0.005). Conclusion: The prevalence of PE and mortality due to PE is high in cancer patients. Risk stratification for venous thromboembolism (VTE) should be done in all cancer patients and thromboprophylaxis should be optimally used.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer
  Online since 1st April '07
  © 2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow