Key result
Pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) implementation was associated with a trend toward lower mortality (8.2% vs. 8.8%) compared to non-PERT evaluation.
Why the study?
Although pulmonary embolism response teams have been widely adopted, sufficient data had only recently accumulated to systematically evaluate whether they improve clinical outcomes compared with management without them.
Does the implementation of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Systematic Review (n=19,968)
Yes
Does the implementation of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) improve clinical outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Implementation of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is associated with trends toward lower mortality, shorter length of stay, and fewer bleeding events, supporting its use as a standard of care for acute pulmonary embolism.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support PERT adoption in acute PE; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm benefit.
BACKGROUND: The pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) was first established in 2012 to aid in timely risk stratification and management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). While this model has been widely adopted in many hospitals, only recently has sufficient data accumulated to allow systematic evaluation of whether PERTs produce measurable improvements in clinical outcomes. This review examines patient outcomes with PERT team implementation, in comparison to outcomes without PERT evaluation. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for "pulmonary embolism response teams" and related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Eligible studies compared outcomes of PERT activation with non-PERT outcomes, and included at least ten patients. RESULTS: A total of 19,968 patients across 26 studies were included. Across the available literature, PERT implementation was associated with a trend toward lower mortality (8.2%, vs. 8.8% without PERT). PERT implementation was also associated with trends towards fewer recurrent deep venous thromboses (DVTs), shorter hospital and ICU length of stay (6.2 vs. 7.2 days total LOS, 2.1 vs. 2.8 days in ICU), and fewer bleeding events (7.0% vs. 7.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Current data is mostly observational and limited by significant variability in study design, however overall improved outcomes were seen for PERT compared to non-PERT patients. In hospitals with adequate capacity, PERT should be considered the standard of care for the management of acute pulmonary embolism. As the PERT model continues to evolve, continued optimization of PERT structure, consistency, and evidence-based activation will be critical to realizing its full potential in improving outcomes for patients with acute pulmonary embolism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Drews et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in acute pulmonary embolism (n=19,968). Pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) vs. No PERT evaluation was evaluated on mortality. Pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) implementation was associated with a trend toward lower mortality (8.2% vs. 8.8%) compared to non-PERT evaluation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: