Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38560480›Full record

ArticleCritical care research and practice2024

Comparison of Treatment Approaches and Subsequent Outcomes within a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Registry.

Anthony J Weekes, Ariana Trautmann, Parker L Hambright, Shane Ali, Angela M Pikus, Nicole Wellinsky, Kelly L Goonan, Sarah Bradford, Nathaniel S O'Connell

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care research and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony J WeekesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Atrium Health's Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9309-7910
Ariana TrautmannDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Atrium Health's Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Parker L HambrightDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Atrium Health's Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0942-3722
Shane AliDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Atrium Health's Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Angela M PikusDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Atrium Health's Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2048-2081
Nicole WellinskyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Atrium Health's Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.
Kelly L GoonanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Atrium Health's Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0616-7851
Sarah BradfordTulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Nathaniel S O'ConnellDepartment of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3827-5152
Carolinas Medical Center · USTulane University · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To characterize the association between pulmonary embolism (PE) severity and bleeding risk with treatment approaches, outcomes, and complications. Methods: Secondary analysis of an 11-hospital registry of adult ED patients treated by a PE response team (August 2016-November 2022). Predictors were PE severity and bleeding risk. The primary outcome was treatment approach: anticoagulation monotherapy vs. advanced intervention (categorized as "immediate" or "delayed" based on whether the intervention was received within 12 hours of PE diagnosis or not). Secondary outcomes were death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding. Results: Of the 1832 patients, 139 (7.6%), 977 (53.3%), and 9 (0.5%) were classified as high-risk, intermediate-high, intermediate-low, and low-risk severity, respectively. There were 94 deaths (5.1%) and 218 patients (11.9%) had one or more clinical deterioration events. Advanced interventions were administered to 86 (61.9%), 195 (27.6%), and 109 (11.2%) patients with high-risk, intermediate-high, and intermediate-low severity, respectively.Major bleeding occurred in 61/1440 (4.2%) on ACm versus 169/392 (7.6%) with advanced interventions (p <0.001): bleeding withcatheter-directed thrombolysiswas 19/145 (13.1%) versus 33/154(21.4%) with systemic thrombolysis,p= 0.07. High risk was twice as strong as intermediate-high risk for association with advanced intervention (OR: 5.3 (4.2 and 6.9) vs. 1.9 (1.6 and 2.2)). High risk (OR: 56.3 (32.0 and 99.2) and intermediate-high risk (OR: 2.6 (1.7 and 4.0)) were strong predictors of clinical deterioration. Major bleeding was significantly associated with advanced interventions (OR: 5.2 (3.5 and 7.8) for immediate, 3.3 (1.8 and 6.2)) for delayed, and high-risk PE severity (OR: 3.4 (1.9 and 5.8)). Conclusions: Advanced intervention use was associated with high-acuity patients experiencing death, clinical deterioration, and major bleeding with a trend towards less bleeding with catheter-directed interventions versus systemic thrombolysis.

Identifiers

PMID38560480
PMCPMC10980543
OpenAlexW4393117225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.