ArticleCardiology journal2024
Treatment of high- and intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism by the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team: Focus on catheter-directed therapies.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Anticoagulation in Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Pooled it
- [Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism and Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients With Interstitial Lung Disease].Open respiratory archivesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs) were established to individualize the treatment of high-risk (HR) and intermediate-high-risk (IHR) pulmonary embolism (PE) patients, which pose a challenge in clinical practice.
methodsWe retrospectively collected the data of all HR and IHR acute PE patients consulted by PERT CELZAT between September 2017 and October 2022. The patient population was divided into four different treatment methods: anticoagulation alone (AC), systemic thrombolysis (ST), surgical embolectomy (SE), and catheter-directed therapies (CDTx). Baseline clinical characteristics, risk stratification, PE severity parameters, and treatment outcomes were compared between the four groups.
resultsOf the 110 patients with HR and IHR PE, 67 (61%) patients were treated with AC only, 11 (10%) with ST, 15 (14%) underwent SE, and 17 (15%) were treated with CTDx. The most common treatment option in the HR group was reperfusion therapy, used in 20/24 (83%) cases, including ST in 7 (29%) patients, SE in 5 (21%) patients, and CTDx in 8 (33%) patients. In contrast, IHR patients were treated with AC alone in 63/86 (73%) cases. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9/24 (37.5%) in the HR group and 4/86 (4.7%) in the IHR group.
conclusionsThe number of advanced procedures aimed at reperfusion was substantially higher in the HR group than in the IHR PE group. Despite the common use of advanced reperfusion techniques in the HR group, patient mortality remained high. There is a need further to optimize the treatment of patients with HR PE to improve outcomes.
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.