ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2024
Expanding outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism to the pregnant population: a case series.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Outpatient treatment of pregnant patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is recommended by some obstetric and haematology societies but has not been described in the literature. Little is known about patient selection and clinical outcomes. Case summary: We report two cases of pregnant patients diagnosed with acute PE. The first, at 9 weeks of gestational age, presented to the emergency department with 12 h of pleuritic chest pain and was diagnosed with segmental PE. She was normotensive and tachycardic without evidence of right ventricular dysfunction. She received multispecialty evaluation, was deemed suitable for outpatient management, and, after 12 h of monitoring, was discharged home on enoxaparin with close follow-up. The second case, at 30 weeks of gestational age, presented to obstetrics clinic with 3 days of dyspnoea. Vital signs were normal except for tachycardia. She was referred to labour and delivery, where she was diagnosed with segmental PE. Her vital signs were stable, and she had no evidence of right ventricular dysfunction. After 6 h of monitoring, she was discharged home on enoxaparin with close follow-up. Neither patient developed antenatal complications from their PE or its treatment. Discussion: This case series is the first to our knowledge to describe patient and treatment characteristics of pregnant patients with acute PE cared for as outpatients. We propose a definition for this phenomenon and discuss the benefits of and provisional selection criteria for outpatient PE management, while engaging with professional society guidelines and the literature. This understudied practice warrants further research.
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.