ArticleCJEM2026
Safety of outpatient management of pulmonary embolism diagnosed in the emergency department.
Article in CJEM, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPulmonary embolism is a serious condition requiring accurate diagnosis, management, and risk stratification to guide treatment and disposition. While outpatient management for pulmonary embolism may be safe for select patients, its application in the emergency department (ED) setting remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of outpatient management for patients presenting to the ED with pulmonary embolism.
methodsThis was a health-record review of patients with confirmed pulmonary embolism in 2 large EDs of a tertiary care hospital. Stable patients were discharged by the ED physicians, usually without consultation and patients were seen in a specialized thrombosis clinic within 48 h. Anticoagulation follow-up was coordinated through the thrombosis clinic. We reviewed electronic hospital records using a standardized data collection form. The primary outcome was return to the ED within 5 days due to early clinical deterioration requiring escalation of treatment. Descriptive statistics are presented.
resultsOut of the 300 patients initially screened, 253 patients had confirmed pulmonary embolism and were evaluated in this review. Ten were excluded (3 admitted for another reason, 5 were discharged by the consulting service, 1 left against medical advice, 1 died in the ED). Of the 243 patients in the final analysis, 101 patients (41.6%) were discharged and managed as outpatients, whereas 58.4% required hospital admission. The discharged patients were younger (mean age 55.0 vs. 64.9 years) and 61.4% received direct-oral anticoagulants. Of these discharged patients, nine (8.9%; 95% CI 4.8-16.1%) returned to the ED within a 5-day period. Five (5.0%) returned due to pulmonary embolism, none suffered clinical deterioration, and none were admitted; of four patients who returned for other reasons (4.0%), none suffered clinical deterioration, and two were admitted.
conclusionOutpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism was safe, with no deterioration or escalation of care observed. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of safely discharging low-risk patients by the ED physician with appropriate follow-up, potentially reducing unnecessary hospital admissions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42501275What 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.