ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2024
Optimal hemodynamic parameters for risk stratification in acute pulmonary embolism patients.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Cancer-Associated Pulmonary Embolism in Contemporary Clinical Practice: Clinical Severity, Incidental Detection, and Early Outcomes in a Real-World Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Intervention in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Comparison of the 2026 AHA/ACC and 2019 ESC Guidelines.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- A nomogram integrating CTPA parameters and serum biomarkers to predict 30-day mortality and refine risk stratification in non-high-risk acute pulmonary embolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Importance of Pulmonary Embolism Anatomy in Ventilatory Distress and Haemodynamics.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hemodynamic assessment of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a fundamental component of early risk stratification that in turn, influences subsequent monitoring and therapeutic strategies. The current body of literature and international evidence-based clinical practice guidelines focus mainly on the use of systolic blood pressure (SBP). The accuracy of this single hemodynamic parameter, however, and its optimal values for the identification of hemodynamic instability have been recently questioned by clinicians. For example, abnormal SBP or shock index may be a late indicator of adverse outcomes, signaling a patient in whom the cascade of hemodynamic compromise is already well underway. The aim of the present article is to review the current evidence supporting the use of SBP and analyze the potential integration of other parameters to assess the hemodynamic stability, impending clinical deterioration, and guide the reperfusion treatment in patients with PE, as well as to suggest potential strategies to further investigate this issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38762710What 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.