ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2022
Inpatient Management of Pulmonary Embolism: Clinical Characteristics and Mortality in a High-Volume Tertiary Care Center.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of Hospital Volume With Outcomes of Pulmonary Embolism in the United States.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) Locations: Best Safety Practices and Local Insights.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Perioperative Management and Outcomes after Endovascular Mechanical Thrombectomy in Patients with Submassive (Intermediate-Risk) Pulmonary Embolism: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of Treatment Approaches and Subsequent Outcomes within a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Registry.Critical care research and practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal management strategy for submassive or intermediate risk pulmonary embolism (IRPE)-anticoagulation alone versus anticoagulation plus advanced therapies-remains in equipoise leading many institutions to create multidisciplinary PE response teams (PERTs) to guide therapy. Cause-specific mortality of IRPE has not been thoroughly examined, which is a meaningful outcome when examining the effect of specific interventions for PE. In this retrospective study, we reviewed all adult inpatient admissions between 8/1/2018 and 8/1/2019 with an encounter diagnosis of PE to study all cause and PE cause specific mortality as the primary outcomes and bleeding complications from therapies as a secondary outcome. There were 429 total inpatient admissions, of which 59.7% were IRPE. The IRPE 30-day all-cause mortality was 8.7% and PE cause-specific mortality was 0.79%. Treatment consisted of anticoagulation alone in 93.4% of cases. Advanced therapies-systemic thrombolysis, catheter directed thrombolysis, or mechanical thrombectomy, were performed in only six IRPE cases (2.3%). Decompensation of IRPE cases requiring higher level of care and/or rescue advanced therapy occurred in only five cases (2%). In-hospital major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding were more common in those receiving systemic thrombolysis (61.5%) compared to anticoagulation combined with other advanced therapies (11.7%). Despite the high overall acuity of PE cases at our institution, in-hospital all-cause mortality was low and cause-specific mortality for IRPE was rare. These data suggest the need to target other clinically meaningful outcomes when examining advanced therapies for IRPE.
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.