ArticlePulmonary circulation2024
Comorbidity profiles and pulmonary embolism risk assessment: Leveraging the Charlson Comorbidity Index for improved prognostication in a national data set.
Article in Pulmonary circulation, 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.
- The incidence and associated factors of pulmonary embolism after cardiac surgery: A retrospective nationwide inpatient sample database study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Impact of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome staging on clinical outcomes and management of acute pulmonary embolism: A comprehensive analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
- Predictors of Impaired Exercise Performance in Patients Qualified for Cardiac Rehabilitation: The Impact of Sex and Comorbidities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comorbidity profiles and pulmonary embolism risk assessment: Leveraging the Charlson Comorbidity Index for improved prognostication in a national data set.Pulmonary circulation · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current risk assessment of pulmonary embolism (PE) stratifies patients based on hemodynamic stability, clinical parameters of severity, right ventricular dysfunction and cardiac injury but fails to integrate a wide variety of comorbid conditions. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) predicts mortality based on patients' diseases and provides a system to quantify disease burden. The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database (2016-2018) was used to identify patients with PE and calculate CCI score groups of 0, 1-2, 3-5, and ≥6 and stratify them by outcome. Of 561,625 patients with PE, 176,460 (31.4%) had CCI score of 0, 223,870 (39.8%) had CCI of 1-2, 102,305 (18.2%) had CCI of 3-5, and 58,990 (10.5%) had CCI ≥ 6. Higher CCI scores were associated with increased mortality: CCI 1-2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.09), CCI 3-5 (aOR 3.12), CCI ≥ 6 (aOR 5.44) compared to CCI 0, along with stepwise increases in shock and mechanical ventilation with each increase in CCI score group. CCI scores ≥3 had increased length of stay (1.4-1.72 days) and increased total hospital costs ($3651-$4265) compared to CCI0. Patients with CCI ≥ 3 were less likely to receive systemic thrombolysis, catheter directed thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy. Acute PE in patients with elevated comorbidity scores is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, increased hospital resource utilization, and decreased usage of advanced therapies in a large cohort reflective of patients across the United States. Integration of comorbidities in risk assessment profiles identifies patients with higher short-term mortality which may guide management strategy.
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.