ArticleHealth science reports2024
A cross-sectional study of outcomes for patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for pulmonary embolism during 2018-2022: Insights from the PINC AI Healthcare Database.
Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) Locations: Best Safety Practices and Local Insights.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A cross-sectional study of outcomes for patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy for pulmonary embolism during 2018-2022: Insights from the PINC AI Healthcare Database.Health science reports · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) treatments for pulmonary embolism (PE) have yet to be compared directly. We aimed to determine if patient outcomes varied following treatment of PE with different MT devices. Methods: All PE encounters with an index treatment of MT between January 2018 and March 2022 were analyzed for in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, and 30-day readmission outcomes in the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database. MT devices used in each encounter were extracted from hospital charge description free-text fields using keyword text and fuzzy matching. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression was used to model outcomes by device. Results: A total of 5893 encounters were identified using MT as the sole index PE treatment and 1812 using MT with another treatment. Of these, 41% had insufficient information to identify the devices used (unspecified MT), 33% used the FlowTriever System (large-bore volume-controlled aspiration MT), 23% the Indigo System (continuous aspiration MT), and 3% some other MT. Large-bore volume-controlled aspiration MT was used with other treatments 13% of the time compared with 23% and 39% for unspecified MT and continuous aspiration MT, respectively. Adjusted logistic regression modeling revealed the odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly higher for patients treated with unspecified MT ([OR] = 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.10-1.83], Conclusion: PE outcomes and treatment patterns differ significantly based on the type of MT utilized. Clinical studies directly comparing MT treatments are needed to further understand optimal treatment of PE.
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.