ArticleThrombosis journal2025
Process and outcome evaluation of a regional pulmonary embolism response team.
Article in Thrombosis journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) reports are limited to single hospitals. We evaluated whether process and clinical outcomes differed for patients presenting to pulmonary embolism (PE) referral versus non-referral centers within a regional PERT program. We also compared outcomes among the three PE referral centers.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed registry data from adult patients treated by a PERT with centralized consultation and transfer protocols across 20 emergency departments (EDs) in North Carolina (2017–2024). Process and clinical outcomes were compared between centers using chi-square tests and t-tests. We identified temporal trends in the aggregate data.
resultsOf 2119 patients, 1173 and 946 had ED PERT activations at referral centers and non-referral centers, respectively. Of non-referral center activations, 534 (56.4%) were transferred to a referral center. Times were longer for patients who presented to referral centers vs. non-referral centers for some process outcomes (e.g., time to first heparin), but shorter for others (e.g., time to catheter-directed thrombolysis [CDT]). We found no significant differences between referral and non-referral centers in advanced intervention use (22.1% vs. 21.9%, p = 0.92), clinical deterioration (14.6% vs. 14.6%, p = 1.00), or major bleeding (9.1% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.08). However, PE severity and clinical deterioration (CD) varied significantly between referral centers (15.0% vs. 17.8% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.008), while advanced intervention use (22.0% vs. 21.2% vs. 23.2%, p = 0.76) and major bleeding (9.8% vs. 10.3% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.28) did not. CD and major bleeding changed significantly over time (p < 0.008); CDT and mechanical thrombectomy (MT) increased nonlinearly (p < 0.001); and systemic thrombolysis (ST) remained stable. Times to MT and ST decreased over time (p < 0.02). There was no change in timing for heparin or CDT (p > 0.3).
conclusionsIn our regional PERT with centralized consultation and transfer protocols, process and clinical outcomes were similar between referral and non-referral centers. There were significant differences in PE severity and CD between referral centers, but advanced intervention use and major bleeding were similar. We identified temporal trends, reflecting expanded availability of interventional therapies and our PERT evolution.
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.