ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Outcomes of catheter intervention for acute pulmonary emboli in a tertiary United Kingdom centre with an established Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT).
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDetermine the outcome of patients treated with catheter-directed interventions as per published recommendations for management escalation by the Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) Consortium.
designRetrospective, observational cohort study. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective review of patient records managed with catheter-directed intervention between April 2012 and March 2022. Risk stratification was performed as per European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Patient demographics, clinical status, and imaging on presentation, procedural details, and outcomes with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year were analysed.
resultsSeventy-nine cases were performed in 76 patients (n = 76; mean age 52 years, range 7-86; male:female = 37:39). Fifty-four patients were high-risk, 16 intermediate-high and 7 intermediate-low risk (n = 77 cases). 39% of high-risk and 22% of intermediate-risk cases had an absolute or relative contraindication to thrombolytic therapy. Seventeen percent of high-risk and 4% of intermediate-risk cases had a failed trial of systemic thrombolysis. 54% of high-risk and 78% of intermediate-risk cases had a failed trial of anticoagulation. There was a statistically significant reduction in the RV:LV ratio (p = 0.05) and clot burden (p < 0.0001) following catheter intervention. Available echocardiographic data demonstrated a trend towards improving right heart strain. Bleeding events occurred in 18% of cases, with 79% being high-risk. There was a significant improvement in functional outcomes as per WHO functional status (p < 0.001).
conclusionCatheter-directed thrombolysis under the guidance of a PERT is a safe and effective therapy and provides a valuable management option for patients who have a contraindication to systemic thrombolysis or have failed a trial of systemic therapy.
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.