ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2024
Outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism managed in-house vs those transferred between hospitals: a retrospective observational study.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 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.
- Association of advanced therapies for intermediate- to high-risk pulmonary embolism with improved right ventricular function on outpatient follow-up among survivors.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Association of transfer time and delays with outcomes for patients with acute pulmonary embolism requiring interhospital transfer: a retrospective observational study.Annals of medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interhospital transfer (IHT) for acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is increasingly performed to improve access to advanced reperfusion therapies. It is unclear if outcomes of patients undergoing IHT are comparable with those of patients presenting in-house to hospitals with PE Response Team (PERT) capabilities. Objectives: To determine whether outcomes of patients with acute PE undergoing IHT differ from those of patients presenting in-house. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 386 patients with acute PE who were treated by PERT at 1 of 3 urban teaching hospitals in the Mount Sinai Health System in New York City from January 2021 to October 2023. Propensity score-weighted analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of patients managed in-house with those of patients undergoing IHT. Results: Two hundred eighty-four patients presented in-house, while 102 were transferred from other hospitals. Median PE Severity Index score was 84, and 3 (0.8%), 80 (20.7%), 237 (61.4%), and 66 (17.1%) had low-risk, intermediate low-risk, intermediate high-risk, and high-risk PE. Odds of receiving systemic thrombolysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; Conclusion: PERT-guided IHT for patients with acute PE was associated with reduced mortality but increased risk of bleeding compared with patients managed in-house at hospitals with PERT capabilities.
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.