ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2021
Saddle pulmonary embolism is not a sign of high-risk deterioration in non-high-risk patients: A propensity score-matched study.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of two scores in predicting pulmonary embolism-related adverse events in intermediate-high-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Saddle embolus and short-term outcomes in patients with intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism: a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Trial
- Unenhanced CT quantitative vascular morphometry for detecting central pulmonary embolism: a multicenter study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Increasing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) 2/ACE axes ratio alleviates early pulmonary vascular remodeling in a porcine model of acute pulmonary embolism with cardiac arrest.World journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is controversy regarding whether saddle main pulmonary artery (MPA) embolism represents a high risk of deterioration in non-high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE) patients. This study aims to address this issue by conducting a propensity score matching (PSM) study.
methodsA total of 727 non-high-risk acute PE patients were retrospectively evaluated. We evaluated the Bova score and risk stratification to examine the risk of deterioration. Deterioration defined as any adverse event within 30 days after admission. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography was used to identify the embolism type. All patients were matched into four subgroups by PSM according to age, sex, Bova score, and risk stratification: (1) MPA and non-MPA embolism; (2) non-saddle MPA and non-MPA embolism; (3) saddle MPA and non-saddle MPA embolism; (4) saddle MPA and non-MPA embolism. Correlations were analyzed using Cox regression analysis, and deterioration risk was compared between subgroups using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
resultsCox regression analysis revealed that MPA embolism was correlated with deterioration, regardless of whether saddle MPA embolism was included or excluded. Saddle MPA embolism was not correlated with deterioration, regardless of comparison with non-saddle MPA embolism or non-MPA embolism. Patients with MPA and non-saddle MPA embolism presented a high risk for deterioration (log-rank test=5.23 and 4.70,
conclusionsSaddle MPA embolism is not indicative of a high risk of deterioration in non-high-risk acute PE patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.