ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2026
The 2026 pulmonary embolism guideline in a regional intensive care unit: Reading the recommendations without a catheter laboratory.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2026 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology pulmonary embolism guideline sets out a severity-based framework and a range of reperfusion strategies, including catheter-directed and mechanical therapies that most regional intensive care units in Australia cannot deliver on site. For the lowest-risk and the most severe high-risk patients, management is largely determined by severity and is similar wherever the patient presents. The difficult group is the patient with intermediate-high or early high-risk pulmonary embolism who may deteriorate but does not yet warrant immediate thrombolysis, and who often carries a bleeding risk that thrombolysis would worsen. The absence of on-site advanced therapy matters most for this group. The guideline helps here by setting out the available therapies and their limits and by defining when to involve a tertiary centre. Systemic thrombolysis remains the only on-site reperfusion option for a regional unit, and for the deteriorating patient without prohibitive bleeding risk, it is a reasonable choice consistent with current best-available evidence. We set out how a regional unit might reason through these decisions and offer a management table as one worked example. The table is a local adaptation and has not been prospectively validated.
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.