Key result
This review summarizes current evidence on competing treatment strategies, including catheter-based and extracorporeal techniques, for high-risk pulmonary embolism where no consensus currently exists.
This review highlights the lack of consensus on the optimal treatment approach for high-risk pulmonary embolism and summarizes current evidence for various strategies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May inform individualized high-risk PE management; leaves open optimal strategy selection.
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common disease process encountered in the acute care setting. It presents on a spectrum of severity with the most severe presentations carrying a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality. In recent years, a wide range of competing treatment strategies have been proposed for the high-risk PE including new catheter-based and extracorporeal techniques, and management has become more challenging. There is currently no consensus as to the optimal approach to treatment. Contemporary management decisions are informed by the balance between the risk of deterioration and the risk of harm from intervention, within the available resources. This review will summarize the current evidence to better inform clinical decision-making in high-risk PE and highlight future directions in management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reardon et al. (2018) conducted a review in High-risk pulmonary embolism. Contemporary management strategies (catheter-based and extracorporeal techniques) was evaluated. This review summarizes current evidence on competing treatment strategies, including catheter-based and extracorporeal techniques, for high-risk pulmonary embolism where no consensus currently exists.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: