1. Startpage
  2. Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
  3. DFG-491381577-H
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-8367
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHobohm, Lukas-
dc.contributor.authorFarmakis, Ioannis T.-
dc.contributor.authorKeller, Karsten-
dc.contributor.authorScibior, Barbara-
dc.contributor.authorMavromanoli, Anna C.-
dc.contributor.authorSagoschen, Ingo-
dc.contributor.authorMünzel, Thomas-
dc.contributor.authorAhrens, Ingo-
dc.contributor.authorKonstantinides, Stavros-
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-30T09:38:43Z-
dc.date.available2023-01-30T09:38:43Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.urihttps://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/8383-
dc.description.abstractBackground Over the last years, multidisciplinary pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) have emerged to encounter the increasing variety and complexity in the management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We aimed to systematically investigate the composition and added clinical value of PERTs. Methods We searched PubMed, CENTRAL and Web of Science until January 2022 for articles designed to describe the structure and function of PERTs. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of controlled studies (PERT vs. pre-PERT era) to investigate the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes and advanced therapies use. Results We included 22 original studies and four surveys. Overall, 31.5% of patients with PE were evaluated by PERT referred mostly by emergency departments (59.4%). In 11 single-arm studies (1532 intermediate-risk and high-risk patients evaluated by PERT) mortality rate was 10%, bleeding rate 9% and length of stay 7.3 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7–8.9]. In nine controlled studies there was no difference in mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.67–1.19] by comparing pre-PERT with PERT era. When analysing patients with intermediate or high-risk class only, the effect estimate for mortality tended to be lower for patients treated in the PERT era compared to those treated in the pre-PERT era (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45–1.12). The use of advanced therapies was higher (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.29–5.50) and the in-hospital stay shorter (mean difference − 1.6 days) in PERT era compared to pre-PERT era. Conclusions PERT implementation led to greater use of advanced therapies and shorter in-hospital stay. Our meta-analysis did not show a survival benefit in patients with PE since PERT implementation. Large prospective studies are needed to further explore the impact of PERTs on clinical outcomes.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipGefördert durch die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Projektnummer 491381577de
dc.language.isoengde
dc.rightsCC BY*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizinde_DE
dc.subject.ddc610 Medical sciencesen_GB
dc.titlePulmonary embolism response team (PERT) implementation and its clinical value across countries : a scoping review and meta-analysisen_GB
dc.typeZeitschriftenaufsatzde
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-8367-
jgu.type.dinitypearticleen_GB
jgu.type.versionPublished versionde
jgu.type.resourceTextde
jgu.organisation.departmentFB 04 Medizinde
jgu.organisation.number2700-
jgu.organisation.nameJohannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz-
jgu.rights.accessrightsopenAccess-
jgu.journal.titleClinical research in cardiologyde
jgu.journal.volumeVersion of Record (VoR)de
jgu.publisher.year2022-
jgu.publisher.nameSpringerde
jgu.publisher.placeBerlinde
jgu.publisher.issn1861-0692de
jgu.organisation.placeMainz-
jgu.subject.ddccode610de
jgu.publisher.doi10.1007/s00392-022-02077-0de
jgu.organisation.rorhttps://ror.org/023b0x485-
jgu.subject.dfgLebenswissenschaftende
Appears in collections:DFG-491381577-H

Files in This Item:
  File Description SizeFormat
Thumbnail
pulmonary_embolism_response_t-20221121112340700.pdf1.05 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record