Retrospective cross-sectional study analyzes hospital outcomes for cancer patients admitted on weekends, suggesting severity rather than admission day affects mortality.
The “weekend effect” has been variably associated with outcomes in acute pulmonary embolism (PE), but its relevance in cancer-associated PE remains uncertain. Among U.S. hospitalizations for cancer-associated PE, is weekend admission independently associated with in-hospital mortality, and do PE-related interventions differ by day of admission? Retrospective cross-sectional study using the HCUP National Inpatient Sample (2016–2022). Adults (≥ 18 years) hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of PE and concomitant malignancy were included. Weekend admission was Saturday–Sunday. Survey-weighted analyses in R generated national estimates. Survey-weighted logistic regression estimated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for in-hospital mortality. We compared PE-related therapies/procedures (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, systemic thrombolysis, and inferior vena cava [IVC] filter placement), including hospital-day-1 use (0 days to procedure). We identified 37,491 unweighted cancer-associated PE hospitalizations, representing approximately 187,455 weighted national hospitalizations, of which 7,804 unweighted hospitalizations (20.8%) were weekend admissions. Weekend admissions had higher acuity, with the administrative marker of high-acuity PE more frequent on weekends (29.1% vs. 26.3%), and higher unadjusted mortality (6.6% vs. 5.9%). In the fully adjusted model ( N = 36,408; deaths = 2,210), weekend admission was not associated with mortality (adjusted OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93–1.16). Mechanical ventilation was more frequent on weekends (4.7% vs. 3.6%). Thrombolysis and overall IVC filter use were similar, but hospital-day-1 IVC filter placement was less common on weekends (14.7% vs. 18.9%). Higher unadjusted weekend mortality in cancer-associated PE appears largely explained by case mix and severity rather than weekend admission itself.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: