ReviewThrombosis and haemostasis2025
Socioeconomic Burden of Pulmonary Embolism in Europe: Shifting Priorities and Challenges for Novel Reperfusion Strategies.
Review in Thrombosis and haemostasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of catheter-directed thrombolysis on the socio-economic burden of pulmonary embolism in Germany: a cost-effectiveness analysis.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2026Pooled it
- Integrating Anti-Phosphatidylserine/Prothrombin Antibodies Testing into Antiphospholipid Syndrome Diagnostics: A Multidomain, Expert Perception-Based Health Technology Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Application of Novel Thrombosis Scale in Fracture Related Lower Extremity Deep Venous Thrombosis.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In-hospital case fatality related to acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has been falling since the beginning of this century. However, annual incidence rates continue to climb, and an increasing number of PE survivors need long-term follow-up, chronic anticoagulation treatment, and readmission(s) to the hospital. In European countries, median reimbursed hospital costs for acute PE are still moderate compared with the United States but can increase several-fold in patients with comorbidities and those necessitating potentially life-saving reperfusion treatment. The use of catheter-directed treatment (CDT) has constantly increased in the United States since the past decade, and it has now entered a rapid growth phase in Europe as well, estimated to reach an annual penetration rate of up to 31% among patients with intermediate-high- or high-risk PE by 2030. Ongoing randomised controlled trials are currently investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of these devices. In addition, they will deliver data permitting calculation of their cost-effectiveness in different health care reimbursement systems, by revealing the extent to which they can reduce complications and consequently the need for intensive care and the overall length of hospital stay. After discharge, key cost drivers are related to chronic cardiopulmonary diseases (other than PE itself) leading to frequent readmissions, persistent symptoms, and functional limitations which result in poor quality of life, productivity loss, and substantial indirect costs. Implementation of structured outpatient programmes with a holistic approach to post-PE care, targeting overall cardiovascular health and the patient's well-being, bears the potential to cost-effectively reduce the overall socioeconomic burden of PE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.