ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices in Patients with High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio and risks of incident arterial thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism among adults-a prospective cohort study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Article
- Intraprocedural Management of Pulmonary Embolism Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Treatment, and Ventilatory and Cardiac Support.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Catheter-based techniques for pulmonary embolism treatment.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common acute cardiovascular condition. Within this review, we discuss the incidence, pathophysiology, and treatment options for patients with high-risk and massive pulmonary embolisms. In particular, we focus on the role of mechanical circulatory support devices and their possible therapeutic benefits in patients who are unresponsive to standard therapeutic options. Moreover, attention is given to device selection criteria, weaning protocols, and complication mitigation strategies. Finally, we underscore the necessity for more comprehensive studies to corroborate the benefits and safety of MCS devices in PE management.
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.