Key result
Pediatric PE pathway and PERT linked to ~3-fold increase in BNP testing.
Why the study?
Pediatric pulmonary embolism is rising in prevalence but remains rare at individual centers, leading to variable evaluation and management.
Does the implementation of a clinical pathway and Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) improve the standardization of evaluation in pediatric patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Observational (n=208)
No
Does the implementation of a clinical pathway and Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) improve the standardization of evaluation in pediatric patients with acute pulmonary embolism?
Implementation of a dedicated clinical pathway and response team for pediatric pulmonary embolism significantly increased adherence to standardized diagnostic evaluations, including biomarker testing and echocardiography.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Encourages pathway adoption to boost evaluation adherence in pediatric PE; extends adult PERT data but leaves outcome effects open.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Whitworth et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Acute pediatric pulmonary embolism (n=208). Pediatric pulmonary embolism clinical pathway and Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) vs. Pre-pathway standard care was evaluated on Laboratory testing with brain natriuretic peptide (p=< 0.01). Implementation of a pediatric PE clinical pathway and PERT significantly increased the proportion of patients receiving brain natriuretic peptide testing from 28.6% to 90.9% (p<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: