ReviewCureus2026
A Narrative Review of Right Heart Dysfunction in Pulmonary Embolism: Current Insights and Clinical Perspectives.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) often presents with non-specific symptoms that make the diagnosis challenging, but the identification of right heart strain (RHS) can help determine the disease severity. Therefore, timely identification and diagnosis of RHS in patients with pulmonary embolisms is critical for accurate risk categorization and appropriate management. The review mainly concentrates on acute pulmonary embolism and right‑heart strain assessment, risk stratification, and management using European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2019 guidelines developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Right‑heart strain is diagnosed by imaging signs such as right‑ventricular dilation, interventricular septal flattening, McConnell's sign, TAPSE < 16 mm, or an RV/LV ratio > 1 on CTPA, together with elevated biomarkers (NT‑proBNP, troponin I, and MPV). These biochemical markers are chosen because they rise with right‑ventricular overload or injury. The aim of this study is to identify a literature gap in the diagnosis of RHS in the context of PE. Various biochemical markers and imaging modalities to diagnose RHS with PE are assessed. Despite the available tools, the current diagnostic approaches remain limited due to the absence of standardized measurement techniques and guidelines for right heart strain assessment on CTPA and echocardiography. Standardization of the assessment of right heart structure and function should be established, as this significantly impacts patient management. This study invites the researchers and international collaboration to set guidelines for the diagnosis of right heart strain in the context of pulmonary embolism to improve patient management and outcomes. This will also help to reduce mortality worldwide. A narrative review of existing studies, imaging techniques, and blood test markers was conducted to highlight existing gaps and call for future guidelines. A literature search was conducted using the Google Scholar database for articles published from 2000 to the most recent ones. Keywords included 'pulmonary embolism,' 'right ventricular dysfunction,' 'right heart strain,' 'thromboembolism,' 'deep venous thrombosis,' 'CT pulmonary angiogram,' 'echocardiography,' and 'anticoagulation.' No limitations were placed on the search to maximize inclusion of relevant literature. Duplicates and non-English articles were excluded.
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.