ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Interventional Management of Intermediate-High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Current Evidence, Patient Selection and Personalised Treatment Strategies.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intermediate-high-risk (IHR) pulmonary embolism (PE) remains one of the most challenging clinical phenotypes in contemporary PE management. Although haemodynamically stable at presentation, these patients remain at significant risk of clinical deterioration, right ventricular failure, and haemodynamic decompensation. Current management primarily relies on anticoagulation and close surveillance, while routine reperfusion therapy remains controversial due to the balance between potential haemodynamic benefit and bleeding risk. Catheter-based reperfusion strategies, including catheter-directed thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, have emerged as potential alternatives to systemic thrombolysis in selected patients. However, despite growing procedural adoption, important uncertainties remain regarding optimal patient selection, timing of intervention, and comparative effectiveness. Current evidence demonstrates consistent short-term improvements in surrogate haemodynamic parameters, but robust evidence for reductions in mortality, recurrent PE, chronic thromboembolic complications, or long-term functional impairment remains limited. This narrative review critically evaluates contemporary catheter-based reperfusion strategies in IHR PE, focusing on methodological limitations of the current evidence base and unresolved challenges in clinical decision-making. It highlights the limitations of existing risk stratification models and the heterogeneity of IHR PE, where static risk categories often fail to capture dynamic clinical deterioration. Future progress in this field will likely depend on improved patient selection, refined risk assessment, and personalised reperfusion strategies supported by high-quality comparative trials.
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.