ArticleClinical therapeutics2024
Sex Differences in Advanced Therapeutic Interventions for Intermediate- and High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism.
Article in Clinical therapeutics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidemiology, Risk Factors, and Mortality in Unprovoked and Provoked Pulmonary Embolism-A Single-Center Retrospective Study in the Israeli Population: Gender and Ethnic Differences.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pulmonary Embolism in Women in the Era of Expanding Advanced Therapies.Current cardiology reports · 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
Abstract
purposeAdvanced interventions are increasingly used to treat intermediate- and high-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). While sex-based differences exist in treatment of other diseases, it is unknown whether these disparities extend to PE.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with radiographically confirmed intermediate- and high-risk acute PE at a tertiary hospital between 1/1/2012 and 12/31/2021 for whom the PE Response Team was activated. Primary outcome was receipt of any advanced intervention. Descriptive and inferential analyses using Chi-square tests, t tests, and logistic regression were performed to evaluate for factors associated with the primary outcome.
findingsWe analyzed 902 patients, of whom 439 (49%) were female. Although women were more likely to present with right heart strain on echo (78.6% vs 71.1% P = 0.012) and elevated NT-proBNP (69.2% vs 55.7% P < 0.001), there was no significant sex-based difference in clinical PE severity, defined as intermediate- versus high-risk, at presentation. Primary outcome did not differ significantly by sex (18.7% vs 23.5% P = 0.129). In multivariate models, high-risk PE decreased odds of receiving an advanced therapy (0.50 [0.31, 0.79] P = 0.003), while receiving assisted ventilation (4.70 [2.90, 7.62], P < 0.001) and full code status (4.18 [1.60, 10.91], P = 0.003) increased odds. IMPLICATIONS: This study adds to the scant literature on sex differences in interventions for acute PE. Significant baseline variation exists between female and male patients presenting with acute PE. Clinical factors were predictive of receiving advanced PE therapies, while sex was not.
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.