Background The impact of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) on treatment choice and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is still uncertain. Objective To determine the effect of… Click to show full abstract
Background The impact of pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) on treatment choice and outcomes of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is still uncertain. Objective To determine the effect of PERTs in the management and outcomes of patients with PE. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, WorldWideScience and MedRxiv were searched for original articles reporting PERT patient outcomes from 2009. Data were analysed using a random effects model. Results 16 studies comprising 3827 PERT patients and 3967 controls met inclusion criteria. The PERT group had more patients with intermediate and high-risk PE (66.2%) compared to the control group (48.5%). Meta-analysis demonstrated an increased risk of catheter-directed interventions, systemic thrombolysis and surgical embolectomy (odds ratio (OR) 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74–2.53; p<0.01), similar bleeding complications (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88–1.37) and decreased utilisation of inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58–0.88; p<0.01) in the PERT group. Furthermore, there was a nonsignificant trend towards decreased mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71–1.07; p=0.19) with PERTs. Conclusions The PERT group showed an increased use of advanced therapies and a decreased utilisation of IVC filters. This was not associated with increased bleeding. Despite comprising more severe PE patients, there was a trend towards lower mortality in the PERT group. Pulmonary embolism response teams increase use of advanced therapies for pulmonary embolism without increasing bleeding complications https://bit.ly/39NJZuw
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.