ReviewEuropean radiology2025
Acute pulmonary embolism: a paradigm shift in interventional treatment and interdisciplinary care?
Review in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Mechanical Thrombectomy Versus Systemic Thrombolysis in Hemodynamically Unstable High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism Requiring Vasopressors: A Propensity-Matched Outcomes Analysis From TriNetX Network.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Interventional Management of Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Current Evidence, Patient Selection and Personalised Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy analysis of the Tendvia™ pulmonary artery stent thrombectomy system in the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk pulmonary embolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catheter-based recanalization procedures have long been standard of care in treating myocardial infarction and stroke. Interventional treatments for pulmonary embolism (PE), however, have only been performed occasionally as second-line strategies until recently. Current guidelines still recommend systemic thrombolysis, which may halve the mortality risk in patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism but is underused outside experienced centers. Novel devices for thrombectomy have significantly changed clinical practice and potentially fill a treatment gap in intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism. Observational data are encouraging and randomized controlled trials are underway to prove safety and efficacy, which requires the adaptation of current treatment paradigms. Interdisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams are needed to provide individualized care, and interventional radiologists are suited to play a pivotal role given their expertise in both diagnostic imaging and invasive procedures. To live up to this challenge, interventional radiologists must familiarize themselves with both the pathophysiology of acute PE as well as with the principles of care provided by other team members. KEY POINTS: Question The recommended treatment of high-risk pulmonary embolism is systemic thrombolysis. New devices for percutaneous aspiration thrombectomy aim to change treatment paradigms and need critical review. Findings Observational data suggests both safety and efficacy of novel thrombectomy devices, randomized controlled trials are underway. The added value of catheter-directed thrombolysis is unclear. Clinical relevance Systemic thrombolysis reduces mortality in patients with high-risk pulmonary embolism but is disproportionately rarely used outside of experienced centers. Percutaneous large-bore pulmonary thrombectomy holds great potential for filling a treatment gap in intermediate and high-risk pulmonary embolism and changing guidelines.
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.