Pulmonary Embolism, Advanced VTE Therapy, and Vena Cava Filters
Acute pulmonary embolism graded by physiologic severity before anatomic clot burden: stable, intermediate-risk, and high-risk PE handled along different pathways. The chapter frames anticoagulation, advanced reperfusion therapy, mechanical support escalation, and the narrow role of vena cava filters.
Emergency handoff / trauma debrief: Urgent but calm: frame the initial recognition, the sequence of decisions, transfer/workflow, and what changes the plan.
Choose the hostsSeverity drives every PE decision
Acute pulmonary embolism is not one disease at the bedside. It is a spectrum ranging from a stable patient who can safely leave the emergency department on oral anticoagulation to a patient in obstructive shock who may die before imaging, transfer, or consultation is complete. The vascular surgeon’s first obligation is therefore not to identify every anatomic clot burden, but to identify physiologic severity. Registry data place in-hospital mortality near 1% for low-risk PE and approximately 15% or higher for haemodynamically unstable PE, with older registry experience showing even higher mortality in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock or sustained hypotension .
- ESC 2019 classifies acute PE into four severity tiers: high-risk (shock or persistent hypotension), intermediate-high-risk (RV dysfunction plus elevated cardiac biomarkers), intermediate-low-risk (one positive risk marker), and low-risk; the classification determines initial therapy intensity and disposition.
- Trigger
- Adults with confirmed acute pulmonary embolism
- Branch / Endpoint
- The 2019 update tightened the intermediate-risk subdivision; AHA 2011 nomenclature (massive/submassive) is still in widespread clinical use.
Citation - For suspected acute PE the Wells score (≤4 'PE unlikely', >4 'PE likely') or the revised Geneva score combined with D-dimer (age-adjusted in patients over 50) rules out PE in a substantial outpatient fraction without imaging; CTPA is the reference point for the remainder.
- Trigger
- Adult outpatients and emergency-department patients with suspected acute PE
- Branch / Endpoint
- Age-adjusted D-dimer (age × 10 μg/L) extends the diagnostic yield in older patients; the YEARS algorithm offers an alternative item-driven cut-off; PERC rules out PE in very low pretest probability without D-dimer.
Citation - CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) on modern helical scanners is the imaging reference point for confirmed-positive pretest probability or positive D-dimer; ventilation–perfusion scanning is the preferred alternative in pregnancy, severe contrast allergy, or renal impairment, and historical PIOPED data still reference point probabilistic V/Q reporting.
- Trigger
- Adults with confirmed need for PE imaging after pretest-probability and D-dimer workflow
- Branch / Endpoint
- CTPA contraindications are renal impairment and severe contrast allergy; pregnancy is the dominant V/Q scenario in current practice.
Citation - Acute pulmonary embolism mortality spans approximately 1 percent in low-risk patients to 15 percent or higher in haemodynamically unstable (high-risk) PE in pooled registries; the ESC 2019 severity classification organises the spectrum.
- Trigger
- Adults with acute pulmonary embolism diagnosed in hospital
- Branch / Endpoint
- Mortality estimates are series- and decade-specific; some massive PE registries report higher mortality.
Citation - The International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER) prospectively followed 2,454 patients with confirmed acute PE across 52 hospitals and reported a 90-day all-cause mortality of approximately 17 percent overall and 58 percent in patients presenting with cardiogenic shock or sustained hypotension, anchoring the historical mortality envelope of haemodynamically unstable PE.
- Trigger
- Adults with confirmed acute PE enrolled into ICOPER
- Branch / Endpoint
- Registry-era reperfusion/thrombolysis use differs from current practice; subgroup mortality varies by definition of shock.
Citation
The practical classification begins with haemodynamics. High-risk PE is defined by shock or persistent hypotension. Once hypotension is absent, the next question is whether the right ventricle is injured and whether cardiac biomarkers are elevated. Patients with both right-ventricular dysfunction and elevated biomarkers are intermediate-high-risk; patients with only one positive risk marker are intermediate-low-risk; patients with neither, and favorable clinical scores, are low-risk . This classification matters because it determines disposition, the intensity of monitoring, and whether advanced therapy should be discussed.
Trainees should avoid the common error of equating an impressive CT clot burden with an automatic need for intervention. A large central embolus in a comfortable patient with normal blood pressure, no biomarker elevation, and no right-ventricular dysfunction is a different problem from a smaller-appearing embolus in a patient with tachycardia, borderline pressure, troponin elevation, and a dilated right ventricle. The decision is driven by hemodynamic reserve, right-ventricular response, and risk of decompensation, not by the radiology impression alone .
The older “massive” and “submassive” vocabulary remains common in operating rooms, catheter laboratories, and call conversations, but it should be translated into the more discriminating modern framework. “Massive” generally corresponds to high-risk PE with shock or persistent hypotension; “submassive” usually corresponds to intermediate-risk PE, which must then be divided into intermediate-high and intermediate-low categories . In practice, the distinction between intermediate-low and intermediate-high PE is where many calls to vascular surgery occur, and it is where disciplined risk stratification prevents both undertreatment and unnecessary procedural escalation.
The International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry followed 2,454 patients with confirmed acute PE across 52 hospitals and reported 90-day all-cause mortality of approximately 17% overall and 58% among patients presenting with cardiogenic shock or sustained hypotension . These figures should not be treated as a prediction for every contemporary patient, because reperfusion practice and supportive care have changed, but they are a useful reminder: the unstable PE patient has a narrow therapeutic window, and delay while the team debates terminology is harmful.
At the bedside, document the indication, timing, and escalation trigger before choosing surveillance, imaging, intervention, or deferral.
Pretest probability, D-dimer, and imaging
Before treatment decisions can be made, suspected PE must be approached with a diagnostic pathway that is safe, reproducible, and documented. In outpatients and emergency-department patients, the Wells score or revised Geneva score is used to define pretest probability, and D-dimer is then applied when PE is not already likely enough to proceed directly to imaging . For the dichotomised Wells approach, a score of 4 or less is “PE unlikely,” while a score greater than 4 is “PE likely”.
- For suspected acute PE the Wells score (≤4 'PE unlikely', >4 'PE likely') or the revised Geneva score combined with D-dimer (age-adjusted in patients over 50) rules out PE in a substantial outpatient fraction without imaging; CTPA is the reference point for the remainder.
- Trigger
- Adult outpatients and emergency-department patients with suspected acute PE
- Branch / Endpoint
- Age-adjusted D-dimer (age × 10 μg/L) extends the diagnostic yield in older patients; the YEARS algorithm offers an alternative item-driven cut-off; PERC rules out PE in very low pretest probability without D-dimer.
- CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) on modern helical scanners is the imaging reference point for confirmed-positive pretest probability or positive D-dimer; ventilation–perfusion scanning is the preferred alternative in pregnancy, severe contrast allergy, or renal impairment, and historical PIOPED data still reference point probabilistic V/Q reporting.
- Trigger
- Adults with confirmed need for PE imaging after pretest-probability and D-dimer workflow
- Branch / Endpoint
- CTPA contraindications are renal impairment and severe contrast allergy; pregnancy is the dominant V/Q scenario in current practice.
The value of D-dimer lies in ruling out PE without imaging in appropriately selected patients, not in confirming the diagnosis. In patients older than 50 years, an age-adjusted D-dimer threshold of age × 10 μg/L increases diagnostic yield while maintaining safety in the intended population . A good note should state the pretest-probability tool used, the score or category, the D-dimer threshold applied, and why imaging was or was not obtained.
CT pulmonary angiography is the imaging reference point for patients with likely pretest probability or a positive D-dimer after structured assessment . The order should not be written as a reflex substitute for clinical assessment; it should follow the probability-and-D-dimer pathway unless the patient’s condition requires urgent imaging or empiric treatment while imaging is arranged. Once the CTPA is positive, the report should be integrated with the patient’s haemodynamics, right-ventricular findings, and biomarkers rather than interpreted in isolation.
Ventilation–perfusion scanning remains important when CTPA is undesirable or unsafe. The main scenarios are pregnancy, severe contrast allergy, and renal impairment . In these patients, the imaging discussion should be explicit: document the reason CTPA was avoided, whether V/Q scanning was chosen, and how the result will be integrated with clinical probability.
Very-low-risk patients may be eligible for rule-out without D-dimer using PERC, and the YEARS algorithm is an alternative item-driven D-dimer strategy . These approaches are useful only when applied deliberately to the population for which they were designed. A trainee should not use a negative D-dimer to rescue an otherwise high-probability case, and should not use a positive D-dimer as proof of PE in a patient with many competing reasons for fibrin turnover.
Risk stratification after confirmed PE
Once PE is confirmed, the diagnostic question is over and the prognostic question begins. Every confirmed PE patient should be assigned a severity tier and a disposition plan. PESI or simplified PESI estimates 30-day mortality, Hestia identifies patients suitable for outpatient treatment, and the Bova score refines risk among haemodynamically stable patients with intermediate-risk features .
The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index uses age, male sex, cancer, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, temperature, mental status, and oxygen saturation to stratify 30-day mortality after confirmed acute PE . PESI Class I–II identifies patients with low 30-day mortality, under 2%, while Classes III–V identify higher-risk patients who need more cautious management. PESI is useful because it forces the clinician to consider the patient’s reserve, not simply the embolus.
The simplified PESI is easier to apply during call because it uses six binary criteria: age over the oldest adults, history of cancer, chronic cardiopulmonary disease, heart rate of at least 110 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure under systolic-pressure threshold, and oxygen saturation under 90% . An sPESI score of 0 identifies a low-risk group with 30-day mortality under 2%, in whom outpatient management or early discharge can be considered when the rest of the clinical situation is favorable. The simplification comes at the cost of slightly less discrimination, but it is often the better bedside tool.
- Selected low-risk PE patients meeting the Hestia criteria (no hemodynamic instability, no requirement for thrombolysis or oxygen, manageable comorbidities and social support) can be discharged directly for outpatient anticoagulation, supported by the HESTIA outpatient trial and AHA 2020 outpatient framing.
- Trigger
- Adults with confirmed low-risk PE eligible for outpatient management
- Branch / Endpoint
- Local outpatient pathways need follow-up scheduling, anticoagulation education, and a defined re-presentation route; not all low-risk PE patients are suitable for outpatient management.
- The Hestia criteria identify acute PE patients eligible for outpatient management by ruling out hemodynamic instability, thrombolysis requirement, oxygen need, active bleeding, severe pain, severe renal/liver insufficiency, pregnancy, thrombocytopenia, social isolation, and inability to take anticoagulation orally; a negative Hestia screen supports early discharge with structured follow-up.
- Trigger
- Adults with confirmed acute PE considered for outpatient management
- Branch / Endpoint
- Hestia is operational and depends on reliable outpatient infrastructure.
Hestia is not simply another mortality score; it is an operational outpatient eligibility screen. It excludes patients with hemodynamic instability, need for thrombolysis, oxygen requirement, active bleeding, severe pain, severe renal or liver insufficiency, pregnancy, thrombocytopenia, social isolation, or inability to take oral anticoagulation . A negative Hestia screen supports early discharge only when outpatient infrastructure exists: timely follow-up, clear anticoagulation instructions, and an explicit re-presentation pathway.
For normotensive patients who are not clearly low risk, the Bova score is a useful way to discipline discussion about decompensation risk. It uses systolic blood pressure, heart rate, troponin elevation, and right-ventricular dysfunction on imaging to divide haemodynamically stable PE patients into three tiers of 30-day PE-related complication risk . It does not apply to high-risk PE; a hypotensive patient has already declared the severity category.
The practical documentation should read like a decision record: confirmed PE, hemodynamic category, RV imaging result, biomarker status, PESI or sPESI, Hestia eligibility if outpatient treatment is considered, and Bova tier if the patient is normotensive but concerning. This structure makes the subsequent choice of anticoagulation alone, monitored anticoagulation, systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, or surgical consultation understandable to every member of the team .
Anticoagulation and vena cava filters: DOACs first, filters rarely
Anticoagulation is the foundation of PE treatment. When clinical probability is high, anticoagulation is commonly started on suspicion while confirmatory testing is being completed, provided bleeding risk is acceptable . Once PE is confirmed, the central practical questions are whether the patient can receive a direct oral anticoagulant, whether parenteral lead-in is required for the selected agent, and whether any contraindication requires an alternative approach.
- PREPIC randomized 400 patients with proximal DVT (with or without PE) on anticoagulation to permanent IVC filter placement versus no filter; at 12 days the filter group had a lower rate of symptomatic PE but at 2 years the filter group had a higher rate of recurrent DVT and no overall mortality benefit, establishing the principle that filters do not augment effective anticoagulation.
- Trigger
- Adults with proximal DVT (with or without PE) on anticoagulation
- Branch / Endpoint
- Permanent filter cohort; trial pre-dates retrievable filter era.
Citation - Inferior vena cava filter placement in patients receiving anticoagulation does not reduce mortality and is associated with a higher rate of recurrent DVT in the PREPIC and PREPIC-2 randomized trials; retrieval of retrievable filters is a quality-of-care reference point and the PRESERVE registry has tracked retrieval rates and complications across modern devices.
- Trigger
- Adults with acute proximal DVT or PE in whom anticoagulation is either contraindicated or being supplemented with filter placement
- Branch / Endpoint
- IVC filter is indicated when anticoagulation is contraindicated, when recurrent VTE occurs despite therapeutic anticoagulation, or in selected high-risk peri-operative scenarios. Retrieval must be scheduled at filter placement and audited as a quality metric to mitigate the recurrent-DVT and IVC-occlusion cost.
Citation - PREPIC-2 randomized 399 patients with acute PE and DVT at high VTE-recurrence risk to a retrievable IVC filter plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone for 6 months and showed no reduction in recurrent symptomatic PE; the filter retrieval rate was 99 percent in protocol patients, reinforcing that retrievable filters do not augment effective anticoagulation.
- Trigger
- Adults with acute PE and DVT at high recurrence risk
- Branch / Endpoint
- Retrievable filter cohort; high retrieval rate achieved by trial design.
Citation
For most eligible patients with acute PE, direct oral anticoagulants are first-line therapy. The EINSTEIN-PE trial randomized 4,832 patients with acute symptomatic PE, with or without DVT, to oral rivaroxaban as a single-drug regimen versus enoxaparin followed by a vitamin-K antagonist for 3 to 12 months follow-up . Rivaroxaban was non-inferior for recurrent VTE and had a significant reduction in major bleeding compared with the enoxaparin–vitamin K antagonist strategy.
The single-drug approach is agent-specific. Rivaroxaban uses an intensified oral lead-in of 15 mg twice daily before transition to maintenance dosing, whereas some other DOAC strategies require initial low-molecular-weight heparin before oral therapy . A trainee should not write “start DOAC” without specifying the agent, the lead-in plan, the timing of the first dose, and how any preceding heparin will be stopped or overlapped.
The dominant safety endpoint is bleeding. Before committing to outpatient or inpatient oral anticoagulation, review active bleeding, recent procedures, renal function constraints, liver dysfunction, thrombocytopenia, pregnancy, and the patient’s ability to take oral therapy reliably . DOACs are not appropriate for mechanical heart valves or triple-positive antiphospholipid syndrome, and severe renal impairment and antiphospholipid syndrome were under-represented in the pivotal PE experience.
Anticoagulation also frames the use of vena cava filters. A filter should not be placed merely because PE or proximal DVT is present if therapeutic anticoagulation can be given . The randomized filter trials established that adding a vena cava filter to effective anticoagulation does not provide an overall mortality advantage and may increase recurrent DVT.
A filter remains appropriate when anticoagulation is contraindicated, when recurrent VTE occurs despite therapeutic anticoagulation, or in selected high-risk peri-operative scenarios . The important vascular-surgery habit is to plan retrieval at the time of insertion. Retrieval is not an administrative afterthought; it is the intervention that limits the long-term cost of a device placed for a temporary risk state.
Systemic thrombolysis for high-risk PE
Systemic thrombolysis is primarily a treatment for high-risk PE: the patient with shock or persistent hypotension in whom rapid reduction of pulmonary vascular obstruction may be lifesaving . It should not be diluted into a casual treatment for every patient with RV strain. The decision is a balance between immediate PE-related death and the real hazard of major bleeding, particularly intracranial hemorrhage.
IVC filter efficacy in anticoagulated VTE
The evidence is clearest in physiologically unstable patients and much more guarded in intermediate-high-risk PE. Pooled randomized data show that systemic thrombolysis can reduce all-cause mortality and recurrent PE compared with heparin alone, but this benefit is offset by increased major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage; the strongest benefit is concentrated in haemodynamically unstable patients . A separate meta-analysis of 16 trials with more than 2,000 patients reported lower mortality with thrombolysis, 2.2% versus 3.9%, but higher major bleeding, 9.2% versus 3.4%, and higher intracranial hemorrhage, 1.5% versus 0.2% .
PEITHO is the trial that should restrain reflexive thrombolysis in intermediate-high-risk PE. In 1,005 patients with RV dysfunction and elevated troponin, tenecteplase plus heparin reduced hemodynamic decompensation or death at day 7 compared with heparin alone, 2.6% versus 5.6%, but increased major extracranial bleeding, 6.3% versus 1.2%, and intracranial hemorrhage, 2.0% versus 0.2% . Long-term follow-up at a median of 38 months showed no significant difference in mortality, residual right-ventricular dysfunction, or chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension between the tenecteplase and placebo groups.
Before thrombolysis is given, contraindications must be reviewed explicitly and quickly. Absolute contraindications include recent intracranial bleeding, recent neurosurgery, intracranial mass, and active bleeding; relative contraindications include recent major surgery, current anticoagulation, and pregnancy . This review should be documented in the same note as the severity classification, because the indication and the bleeding risk are inseparable.
Reduced-dose systemic thrombolysis and catheter-directed approaches have been developed partly to reduce the bleeding cost, but they do not erase the need for disciplined patient selection . For a high-risk PE patient with acceptable bleeding risk, systemic thrombolysis remains a decisive therapy; for an intermediate-high-risk patient who is stable but concerning, the better posture is monitored anticoagulation, multidisciplinary discussion, and rescue reperfusion if deterioration occurs .
Vena cava filters should not be used as a substitute for reperfusion in a patient dying of obstructive shock, nor should they be used as an adjunct to effective anticoagulation simply because the clot burden is large. PREPIC randomized 400 patients with proximal DVT, with or without PE, receiving anticoagulation to permanent filter placement versus no filter; the filter group had fewer symptomatic PEs at 12 days but more recurrent DVT at two years and no mortality benefit . PREPIC-2 randomized 399 patients with acute PE and DVT at high recurrence risk to retrievable filter plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone and showed no reduction in recurrent symptomatic PE, with 99% retrieval among protocol patients .
Catheter-directed and large-bore mechanical thrombectomy
Catheter-directed therapy occupies the space between anticoagulation alone and systemic thrombolysis or surgical rescue. It is most relevant for intermediate-high-risk PE and selected high-risk PE in centers with catheter-laboratory capability and an organized multidisciplinary response . The purpose is to improve right-ventricular strain and pulmonary artery pressures while reducing exposure to systemic thrombolytic dose or avoiding thrombolytic drug entirely .
- The PE Response Team (PERT) Consortium framework operationalises multidisciplinary case-by-case triage of intermediate-high-risk and high-risk PE by bringing pulmonary, cardiology, intensivist, vascular surgery, interventional radiology, and cardiac surgery expertise to a single point of decision-making, especially when advanced therapies are being considered.
- Trigger
- Centers caring for intermediate-high-risk or high-risk acute PE
- Branch / Endpoint
- PERT structures and protocols differ across institutions; randomized mortality evidence pending.
Citation - The Society of Interventional Radiology 2023 position document on catheter-directed therapy for acute PE recommends selective use of catheter-directed thrombolysis and large-bore mechanical thrombectomy for intermediate-high-risk and high-risk PE within a PE response team framework, emphasising that randomized mortality evidence is pending and that institutional outcomes should be tracked.
- Trigger
- Adults with intermediate-high-risk or high-risk acute PE considered for catheter-directed therapy
- Branch / Endpoint
- Class/level wording is selective; mortality data pending from randomized trials.
Citation
The PERT model is useful because these cases rarely belong to one specialty. Pulmonary, cardiology, critical care, vascular surgery, interventional radiology, and cardiac surgery perspectives may all be relevant when the patient has intermediate-high-risk or high-risk PE . The value of the team is not ceremony; it is a single point of decision-making when the patient may need anticoagulation alone, catheter-directed thrombolysis, large-bore thrombectomy, systemic thrombolysis, operative embolectomy discussion, or escalation of critical care support.
Ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis has supportive evidence for improving right-ventricular metrics in intermediate-risk PE. ULTIMA randomized 59 patients with intermediate-high-risk PE and right-ventricular dysfunction to ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis with reduced-dose alteplase versus heparin alone, and showed reduction in RV/LV diameter ratio at 24 hours without major bleeding . SEATTLE II, a prospective single-arm study of 150 patients with submassive and massive PE, showed reduction in RV/LV ratio and pulmonary artery pressures with no intracranial hemorrhage and a low major-bleeding rate .
Large-bore mechanical thrombectomy offers a thrombolytic-free approach, which is attractive when bleeding risk is a dominant concern. FLARE studied the FlowTriever device in 106 patients with intermediate-risk acute PE and reported an RV/LV ratio reduction of approximately 0.25 within 48 hours, with major bleeding under 2% and no intracranial hemorrhage . EXTRACT-PE studied the Indigo aspiration system in 119 patients with intermediate-risk acute PE and reported an RV/LV ratio reduction of approximately 0.4 within 48 hours, with major bleeding near 2% and no intracranial hemorrhage .
Registry experience supports the external validity of these single-arm device data but does not replace randomized mortality evidence. The FlowTriever All-Comer Registry included more than 2,000 patients treated across more than 80 US sites and reported consistent reductions in RV dysfunction and pulmonary artery pressures with a major-bleeding rate under 2% . That is reassuring for real-world performance, but it remains subject to selection bias and does not prove a mortality advantage over anticoagulation or other reperfusion strategies.
The current procedural posture should therefore be selective and accountable. The Society of Interventional Radiology position document supports catheter-directed thrombolysis and large-bore mechanical thrombectomy for selected intermediate-high-risk and high-risk PE patients within a PE response team framework, while emphasising that randomized mortality data are pending and institutional outcomes should be tracked . For the vascular surgeon, the practical standard is to define the indication before entering the room, document the severity variables and bleeding rationale, measure hemodynamic and RV-response endpoints, and audit complications rather than assuming that a technically successful extraction equals a patient-centred benefit.
References
- 1.Thrombolysis for Pulmonary Embolism and Risk of All-Cause Mortality, Major Bleeding, and Intracranial Hemorrhage. 2014.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2014
Thrombolysis for Pulmonary Embolism and Risk of All-Cause Mortality, Major Bleeding, and Intracranial Hemorrhage. 2014. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.5990.
- 2.
- 3.2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). 2019.PubMed-indexed articleClinical practice guideline2019
2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). 2019. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405.
- 4.
- 5.A Prospective, Single-Arm, Multicenter Trial of Catheter-Directed Mechanical Thrombectomy for Intermediate-Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism. 2019.PubMed-indexed articleRegistry / cohort2019
A Prospective, Single-Arm, Multicenter Trial of Catheter-Directed Mechanical Thrombectomy for Intermediate-Risk Acute Pulmonary Embolism. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.12.022.
- 6.
- 7.Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). 1999.PubMed-indexed articleRegistry / cohort1999
Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). 1999. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)07534-5.
- 8.Systemic thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2014.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2014
Systemic thrombolytic therapy for acute pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2014. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu218.
- 9.
- 10.Management of Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism, Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis, and Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension. 2011.PubMed-indexed articleClinical practice guideline2011
Management of Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism, Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis, and Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension. 2011. doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e318214914f.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020.PubMed-indexed articleClinical practice guideline2020
Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline for Inferior Vena Cava Filters in the Treatment of Patients with Venous Thromboembolic Disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2020.06.014.
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.A Randomized Trial of the Optimum Duration of Acoustic Pulse Thrombolysis Procedure in Acute Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism. 2018.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2018
A Randomized Trial of the Optimum Duration of Acoustic Pulse Thrombolysis Procedure in Acute Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism. 2018. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.04.008.
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. Results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). 1990.PubMed-indexed articleRegistry / cohort1990
Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism. Results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). 1990. doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440200057023.
- 41.
- 42.Effect of a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Plus Anticoagulation vs Anticoagulation Alone on Risk of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism. 2015.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2015
Effect of a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Plus Anticoagulation vs Anticoagulation Alone on Risk of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism. 2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3780.
- 43.Eight-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Permanent Vena Cava Filters in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism. 2005.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2005
Eight-Year Follow-Up of Patients With Permanent Vena Cava Filters in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism. 2005. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.104.512834.
- 44.A Clinical Trial of Vena Caval Filters in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with Proximal Deep-Vein Thrombosis. 1998.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial1998
A Clinical Trial of Vena Caval Filters in the Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with Proximal Deep-Vein Thrombosis. 1998. doi:10.1056/nejm199802123380701.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.A Prospective, Single-Arm, Multicenter Trial of Ultrasound-Facilitated, Catheter-Directed, Low-Dose Fibrinolysis for Acute Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism. 2015.PubMed-indexed articleRegistry / cohort2015
A Prospective, Single-Arm, Multicenter Trial of Ultrasound-Facilitated, Catheter-Directed, Low-Dose Fibrinolysis for Acute Massive and Submassive Pulmonary Embolism. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2015.04.020.
- 49.
- 50.Simplification of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index for Prognostication in Patients With Acute Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism. 2010.PubMed-indexed article2010
Simplification of the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index for Prognostication in Patients With Acute Symptomatic Pulmonary Embolism. 2010. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.199.
- 51.Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism. 2014.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2014
Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Acute Intermediate-Risk Pulmonary Embolism. 2014. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.113.005544.
- 52.Direct oral anticoagulants compared with vitamin K antagonists for acute venous thromboembolism: evidence from phase 3 trials. 2014.PubMed-indexed articleMeta-analysis / systematic review2014
Direct oral anticoagulants compared with vitamin K antagonists for acute venous thromboembolism: evidence from phase 3 trials. 2014. doi:10.1182/blood-2014-04-571232.
- 53.Derivation of a Simple Clinical Model to Categorize Patients Probability of Pulmonary Embolism: Increasing the Models Utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. 2000.PubMed-indexed article2000
Derivation of a Simple Clinical Model to Categorize Patients Probability of Pulmonary Embolism: Increasing the Models Utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. 2000. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1613830.
- 54.Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. 2017.PubMed-indexed articleRegistry / cohort2017
Simplified diagnostic management of suspected pulmonary embolism (the YEARS study): a prospective, multicentre, cohort study. 2017. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30885-1.
- 55.Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al. Effect of a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Plus Anticoagulation vs Anticoagulation Alone on Risk of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1627-1635.PubMed-indexed articleRandomized controlled trial2015
Mismetti P, Laporte S, Pellerin O, et al. Effect of a Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filter Plus Anticoagulation vs Anticoagulation Alone on Risk of Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1627-1635. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3785.
Educational use only
AI assists this editorial workflow. Published updates are human-reviewed before publication.
Not intended to diagnose, monitor, predict, prognose, treat, or alleviate disease.
Verify clinically relevant information against primary sources and current guidelines.