ArticleJACC. Advances2025
Long-Term Outcomes Following Catheter-Based Therapies in Older Adults With Acute Pulmonary Embolism.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Plugging the Gaps: Catheter-Based Interventions in Elderly Patients Presenting With Pulmonary Embolism.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundDespite the increasing use of catheter-based therapies (CBTs) for acute pulmonary embolism (PE), evidence is limited regarding the long-term outcome.
objectivesWe aimed to investigate the efficacy of CBT for high- and intermediate-risk PE in older adults.
methodsWe included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years admitted for PE from 2017 to 2020 and compared in-hospital and long-term outcomes between patients treated with and without CBT. Propensity score matching weight and instrumental variable analyses were implemented.
resultsWe included 6,742 and 23,750 patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk PE, of which 11.4% and 15.1% patients were treated with CBT. In high-risk PE, patients treated with CBT, compared with those without, experienced lower in-hospital death (29.0% vs 43.9%; adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61-0.87) and 3-year mortality (45.7% vs 65.5%; adjusted HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.85) but higher intracranial hemorrhage (2.1% vs 1.0%; aOR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.18-4.44). In intermediate-risk PE, we found no evidence that the incidence of in-hospital death differed between the 2 groups (3.1% vs 4.1%; aOR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.75-1.16), but patients treated with CBT experienced lower 3-year mortality (14.9% vs 30.3%; adjusted HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.63-0.75) and higher incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (0.5% vs 0.3%; aOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.17-3.55). The association between the use of CBT and lower 3-year mortality was consistent in the instrumental variable analysis.
conclusionsAmong older adults with high-risk or intermediate-risk PE, patients treated with CBT experienced lower mortality over the follow-up of up to 3 years, but higher risk of in-hospital bleeding complications.
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.