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

Gerard Pacouret, MD
Tours, France

Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(22):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.

Greenfield has a 2-decade experience in the treatment of patients suffering from venous thrombosis and PE. He has contributed greatly to the development of inferior vena caval filter, a treatment that has undoubtedly saved many lives. Nevertheless, concerning FFT, his arguments in favor of routine vena caval filtering, in opposition to the favorable results that my colleagues and I observed in 62 patients treated with anticoagulants alone,¹ are somewhat contradictory.

Greenfield has underscored the value of a computerized patient database to assess the efficacy of a therapy. We have such a database in our institution, and since 1992, the charts of 639 patients with proximal deep venous trombosis have been recorded. Among these patients, 49.8% had FFT and 66% had a PE (57% being massive) on admission, but only 9% were treated initially with vena caval filtering. Anticoagulant therapy was administered in 98% of these 639 patients (with low-molecular-weight . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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