ReviewJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Mechanical Circulatory Support for Massive Pulmonary Embolism.
Review in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of Venous-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Therapy in Acute Pulmonary Embolism: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Intraprocedural Management of Pulmonary Embolism Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Treatment, and Ventilatory and Cardiac Support.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Pulmonary embolism consensus.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2026Article
- Bedside thoracic echography in ICU: new insights for acute circulatory and respiratory failure.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support for acute right heart failure: A practical approach.ESC heart failure · 2025Review
- Hemodynamic improvement with Impella RP in acute massive pulmonary embolism: a narrative review of cardiovascular outcomes and pulmonary catheter pressure assessment.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Rising Above the Limits of Critical Care ECMO: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Up to 50% of patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) experience hemodynamic instability and approximately 70% of patients who die of PE experience an accelerated cascade of symptoms within the first hours of onset of symptoms, thus necessitating rapid evaluation and intervention. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and other ventricular assist devices, depending on the hemodynamic derangements present, may be used to stabilize patients with massive PE refractory to initial therapies or with contraindications to other interventions. Given the abnormalities in both pulmonary circulation and gas exchange caused by massive PE, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be considered the preferred form of mechanical circulatory support for most patients. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation unloads the right ventricle and improves oxygenation, which may not only help buy time until definitive treatment but may also reduce myocardial ischemia and myocardial dysfunction. This review summarizes the available clinical data on the use of mechanical circulatory support, especially venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, in the treatment of patients with massive PE. Furthermore, this review also provides practical guidance on the implementation of this strategy in clinical practice.
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.