• Jae-Sun Uhm, Hae-Ok Jung, Chan-Joon Kim, Tae-Hoon Kim, Ho-Joong Youn, Sang Hong Baek, Wook-Sung Chung, and Ki Bae Seung.
• Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
• J. Korean Med. Sci. 2012 Nov 1; 27 (11): 134713531347-53.

AbstractThis study was performed to compare clinical and imaging parameters and prognosis of unprovoked pulmonary embolism (PE), provoked PE with reversible risk factors (provoked-rRF), and provoked PE with irreversible risk factors (provoked-iRF) in Koreans. Three hundred consecutive patients (mean age, 63.6 ± 15.0 yr; 42.8% male) diagnosed with acute PE were included. The patients were classified into 3 groups; unprovoked PE, provoked-rRF, and provoked-iRF; 43.7%, 14.7%, and 41.7%, respectively. We followed up the patients for 25.4 ± 33.7 months. Composite endpoint was all-cause mortality and recurrent PE. The provoked-iRF group had significantly higher all-cause mortality, mortality from PE and recurrent PE than the unprovoked and provoked-rRF groups (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.034, respectively). Prognostic factors of composite endpoint in the unprovoked group were high creatinine (> 1.2 mg/dL; P < 0.001; hazard ratio [HR], 4.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.845-12.152), C-reactive protein (CRP; > 5 mg/L; P = 0.002; HR, 5.308; 95% CI, 1.824-15.447) and computed tomography (CT) obstruction index (P = 0.034; HR, 1.090; 95% CI, 1.006-1.181). In conclusion, provoked-iRF has a poorer prognosis than unprovoked PE and provoked-rRF. Renal insufficiency, high CRP, and CT obstruction index are poor prognostic factors in unprovoked PE.

29 keywords...

hide…