View clinical trials related to Embolism.
Filter by:Identify risk factors for developing chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension after acute pulmonary embolism. Determine echocardiographic predictors of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Determine the radiological predictors of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension in CT pulmonary angiography.
Retrospectively analyze the risk factors of VTE in 5774 patients with thoracic trauma from 33 hospitals in China, and established a risk prediction model
Background Blood transfusions in pregnancy are usually urgent, unpredictable, and occur in otherwise healthy women. There is evidence of increasing rates of maternal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion around childbirth both in Europe and in US. Indeed, they are recorded in approximately 0.4-1.6% of all deliveries. Although obstetric patients use a small proportion of the blood supply overall (3-4%), however over the last years there has been a significant increase (about 30%) in the use of blood and blood products throughout pregnancy. Most available data relate to the peri-partum period, defined as those occurring from 48 hours before delivery onwards. Anemia in pregnancy is associated with increased maternal mortality and fetal intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). The risk of these adverse effects is proportional to the severity of anemia; for instance, preterm birth and low birth weight rates are particularly high among women with a hemoglobin below 7 g/dL. The presence of anemia in at-term pregnant women is a rather frequent and unrecognized risk factor for peri-partum hemorrhage (PPH) transfusion. In a retrospective investigation, we have calculated that almost 20% of at-term pregnant women show iron deficiency anemia. It has been suggested that reduction of RBC transfusion in the context of PPH may decrease maternal mortality and, at the same time, reduce costs. Patient's Blood Management (PBM) is a well-known strategy based on 1) identification of anemia; 2) reduction of blood loss and 3) reduction of RBC transfusion. In several medical specialties, recommendations based on available evidence highlighted the concept that a restrictive RBC administration is safe and efficacious. Despite the fact that the WHO has recommended PBM early 2010, the majority of hospitals are in need of guidelines to apply PBM in daily practice. Rationale Anemia is a frequent and often unrecognized hallmark of at-term pregnancies. Systematic collection of data on transfusion practice during pregnancy and post-partum period are scarce. The application of PBM in obstetrics is expected to improve pregnancy outcome and optimize resources. Objectives Objectives of the present study are 1. To estimate: frequency of anemia in pregnancy and feto-maternal complications, distribution of haemorrhage aetiologies and transfusion indications. 2. To evaluate associations of these outcomes with gestational age, and transfusion dose.
The purpose of this study is to prospectively validate the first PUMCH model for acute PE severity and prognosis prediction based on multi-center data constructed in the pre-project period based on national population data, and to optimize the PUMCH model based on artificial intelligence clustering algorithm.
The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of a larger study to determine the Adjust-Unlikely algorithm safety and efficiency for diagnosing PE. The pilot study objectives are to: 1. Determine study recruitment rate, per site, per month 2. Determine study 90-day loss to follow up rate 3. Estimate of the proportion of enrolled patients who test negative for PE at initial assessment using the Adjust-Unlikely rule 4. Estimate of the Adjust-Unlikely algorithm efficiency 5. Compare excluded and missed-eligible patients to study participants: age, sex and prevalence of PE diagnoses at initial testing. The pilot study hypothesis is that the investigators can recruit at least 20 patients per month and successfully follow at least 90% of patients for 90 days.
The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatment with anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation and mechanical aspiration thrombectomy with the Indigo Aspiration System for the treatment of intermediate-high risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE).
Prospective, randomized, open label, multicenter, 2-arm, safety and efficacy study
The primary objective of this investigation is to compare the efficacy of two different antithrombotic strategies after percutaneous LAA occlusion with a Watchman device on the prevention of silent cerebral embolism.
Researchers are looking for a better way to treat people with atrial fibrillation and prevent stroke or systemic embolism (blood clots travelling through the blood stream to plug another vessel). Atrial fibrillation is a condition of having irregular and often rapid heartbeat. It can lead to the formation of blood clots in the heart which can travel through the blood stream to plug another vessel, and like this lead to serious and life-threatening conditions, such as a stroke. A stroke occurs because the brain tissue beyond the blockage no longer receives nutrients and oxygen so that brain cells die. As strokes arising from atrial fibrillation can involve extensive areas of the brain, it is important to prevent them. Blood clots are formed in a process known as coagulation. Medications are already available to prevent the formation of blood clots. When taken by mouth (orally), they are known as oral anticoagulants (OACs) including apixaban. OACs decrease the risk of the above-mentioned serious and life-threatening conditions. The main side effect of OACs is an increase of the risk of bleeding. The study treatment asundexian is a new type of anticoagulant currently under development to provide further treatment options. Asundexian aims to further improve the standard of care with regard to the risk of bleeding. The main purpose of this study is to collect more data about how well asundexian works to prevent stroke and systemic embolism and how safe it is compared to apixaban in people with atrial fibrillation and at high risk for stroke. To see how well the study treatment asundexian works researchers compare: - how long asundexian works well and - how long apixaban works well after the start of the treatment. Working well means that the treatments can prevent the following from happening: - stroke and/or - systemic embolism. The study will keep collecting data until a certain number of strokes or embolisms happen in the study. To see how safe asundexian is, the researchers will compare how often major bleedings occur after taking the study treatments asundexian and apixaban, respectively. Major bleedings are bleedings that have a serious or even life-threatening impact on a person's health. The study participants will be randomly (by chance) assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups, A and B. Dependent on the treatment group, the participants will either take the study treatment asundexian by mouth once a day or apixaban by mouth twice a day for approximately 9 - 33 months. Each participant will be in the study for approximately 9 - 34 months. There will be visits to the study site every 3 to 6 months and up to 7 phone calls. Those participants who do not want or are unable to have visits to the study site may join the study remotely in selected locations. The location name contains the abbreviation - DCT in such cases. During the study, the study team will: - take blood samples - do physical examinations - examine heart health using an electrocardiogram (ECG) - check vital signs such as blood pressure and heart rate - do pregnancy tests - ask the participants questions about their quality of life - ask the participants questions about how they are feeling and what adverse events they are having. An adverse event is any medical problem that a participant has during a study. Doctors keep track of all adverse events that happen in studies, even if they do not think the adverse events might be related to the study treatments.
1. Assess performance of PERFORM score in predicting outcome in CTPA confirmed patients. 2. Compare PERFORM score with the currently validated PESI in risk stratification of patients