Key result
Implementation of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) was associated with 30-day MACE in 15% of patients versus 38% in the pre-PERT era (p=0.06).
Why the study?
Published experience on pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT) in Latin America remains scarce despite growing evidence supporting PERT in high-income countries.
Does Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) implementation improve 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism undergoing catheter-based therapy?
Cohort (n=53)
No
Does Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) implementation improve 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary embolism undergoing catheter-based therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 15% vs 38%
p-value: p=0.06
Implementation of a Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT) was associated with a shift toward treating intermediate-high risk patients, increased use of mechanical thrombectomy, and reduced 30-day mortality in this subgroup.
PERT implementation may improve 30-day outcomes after CBT for PE in Latin America; extends high-income data but remains hypothesis-generating.
PURPOSE: Despite growing evidence supporting pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT) in high-income countries, published experience from Latin America remains scarce. We assessed the association between PERT implementation and 30-day clinical outcomes in patients with acute PE treated with catheter-based therapy (CBT) in a Latin American university hospital. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with confirmed acute PE treated with CBT between 2004 and 2025. Patients were stratified by treatment era (pre-PERT: 2004-2020; PERT: 2021-2025). The primary endpoint was 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or major bleeding (BARC grade ≥3). RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were included: 26 (49%) pre-PERT and 27 (51%) PERT era. ESC high-risk patients predominated in the pre-PERT era (17 (65%) vs 6 (22%); p = 0.002), while intermediate-high risk predominated in the PERT era (9 (35%) vs 21 (78%); p = 0.002). Dedicated thrombectomy devices were used universally in the PERT era (14 (54%) vs 27 (100%); p < 0.001). MACE occurred in 10 (38%) vs 4 (15%) patients (p = 0.06). In a subanalysis restricted to intermediate-high risk patients, 30-day mortality was 0/21 (0%) in the PERT era versus 3/9 (33%) in the pre-PERT era (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: In one of the few Latin American reports on PERT-guided CBT, implementation was associated with a shift toward intermediate-high risk patients, greater use of mechanical thrombectomy, and lower thrombolytic exposure, without an increase in major bleeding. Among intermediate-high risk patients, 30-day mortality was significantly lower in the PERT era, supporting the safety and potential benefit of structured multidisciplinary PE management in resource-limited settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Damonte et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Acute pulmonary embolism (n=53). Pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) implementation vs. Pre-PERT era was evaluated on 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, stroke, or major bleeding (BARC grade ≥3) (p=0.06). Implementation of a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) was associated with 30-day MACE in 15% of patients versus 38% in the pre-PERT era (p=0.06).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: