This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Lazar J. Greenfield, MD
Ann Arbor, Mich

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(22):2661-2662.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The recent article by Pacouret et al¹ and the accompanying editorial by Goldhaber² raise issues that deserve comment. In their prospective, observational study of patients with a free-floating thrombus (FFT), Pacouret and colleagues were able to demonstrate a low incidence of recurrent thromboembolic events relative to a comparable group of patients with occlusive thrombus. They used anticoagulation as the primary method of treatment and should be congratulated for contributing this experience to our knowledge of FFT. However, their conclusion, based on 62 cases of FFT, that filter placement should be avoided until randomized clinical trials can be done is an unjustified leap that grossly overgeneralizes their data. Their definition of FFT may help to explain the difference in better patient outcomes compared with the observations made by other investigators who found a much higher incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE).^3-6 When the definition included movement of the unattached . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?