ReviewMethodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal2024
Catheter Interventions for Pulmonary Embolism: Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Thrombolytics.
Review in Methodist DeBakey cardiovascular journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventional Management of Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Current Evidence, Patient Selection and Personalised Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Management of High-Risk Pulmonary Thromboembolism Using Conventional Catheter Devices: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Design and rationale of PRAGUE-26: a multicentre, randomised trial of catheter-directed thrombolysis for intermediate-high risk acute pulmonary embolism.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Thrombus vs Tumor: Use of AngioVac in a RV Mass.JACC. Case 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism is a debilitating and potentially life-threatening disease characterized by high mortality and long-term adverse outcomes. Traditional treatment options are fraught with serious bleeding risks and incomplete thrombus removal, necessitating the development of innovative treatment strategies. While new interventional approaches offer promising potential for improved outcomes with fewer serious complications, their rapid development and need for more comparative clinical evidence makes it challenging for physicians to select the optimal treatment for each patient among the many options. This review summarizes the current published clinical data for both traditional treatments and more recent interventional approaches indicated for pulmonary embolism. While published studies thus far suggest that these newer interventional devices offer safe and effective options, more data is needed to understand their impact relative to the standard of care. The studies in progress that are anticipated to provide needed evidence are reviewed here since they will be critical for helping physicians make informed treatment choices and potentially driving necessary guideline changes.
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.