ArticleThrombosis journal2024
Reduced mortality associated with pulmonary embolism response team consultation for intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Venous Thromboembolism Between Weekend Diagnosis and Weekday Diagnosis in the Direct Oral Anticoagulant Era: Insights From the COMMAND VTE Registry-2.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of Right Heart Dysfunction in Pulmonary Embolism: Current Insights and Clinical Perspectives.Cureus · 2026Review
- Optimizing Care in Pulmonary Embolism with the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Effects of Implementing a Standardized Risk Stratification and Triage Workflow for an Established Pulmonary Embolism Response Team.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Patients' Stratification, Prognosis, and Therapeutic Options-Time to Pay Attention to the Middle Child.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Advancements in Acute Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis and Treatment: A Narrative Review of Emerging Imaging Techniques and Intravascular Interventions.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Recent advances in risk stratification and treatment of acute pulmonary embolism.World journal of cardiology · 2025Review
- Mechanical circulatory support in acute pulmonary embolism.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has become increasingly complex with the expansion of advanced therapeutic options, resulting in the development and widespread adoption of multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERTs). Much of the literature evaluating the impact of PERTs has been limited by pre- postimplementation study design, leading to confounding by changes in global practice patterns over time, and has yielded mixed results. To address this ambiguity, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of the distinct exposures of PERT availability and direct PERT consultation.
methodsAt a single tertiary center, we conducted propensity-matched analyses of hospitalized patients with intermediate or high-risk PE. To assess the impact of PERT availability, we evaluated the changes in 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay (HLOS), time to therapeutic anticoagulation (TAC), in-hospital bleeding complications, and use of advanced therapies between the two years preceding and following PERT implementation. To evaluate the impact of direct PERT consultation, we conducted the same analyses in the post-PERT era, comparing patients who did and did not receive PERT consultation.
resultsSix hundred eighty four patients were included, of which 315 were pre-PERT patients. Of the 367 postPERT patients, 201 received PERT consultation. For patients who received PERT consultation, we observed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (5% vs 20%, OR 0.38, p = 0.0024), HLOS. (-5.4 days, p < 0.001), TAC (-0.25 h, p = 0.041), and in-hospital bleeding (OR 0.28, p = 0.011). These differences were not observed evaluating the impact of PERT presence in pre-vs postimplementation eras.
conclusionsWe observed a significant reduction in 30-day mortality, hospital LOS, TAC, and in-hospital bleeding complications for patients who received PERT consultation without an observed difference in these metrics when comparing the pre- vs post-implementation eras. This suggests the benefits stem from direct PERT involvement rather than the mere existence of PERT. Our data supports that PERT consultation may provide benefit to patients with acute intermediate or high-risk PE and can be achieved without a concomitant increase in advanced therapies.
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.