肺栓塞反应团队结局的系统综述
该综述检索PubMed比较肺栓塞反应团队(PERT)启动与非PERT管理的患者结局,纳入26项研究共19968例患者。PERT实施与死亡率、复发深静脉血栓、住院及ICU时长和出血事件呈下降趋势相关,但数据多为观察性且研究设计异质性大,作者建议有条件的医院将PERT作为急性肺栓塞管理的标准。
要点
- PERT实施与死亡率下降趋势相关(8.2% vs 8.8%)。
- PERT与总住院时长(6.2 vs 7.2天)和ICU时长(2.1 vs 2.8天)缩短趋势相关。
- 证据以观察性研究为主,设计异质性显著,需谨慎解读。
核心结论
- 现有数据多为观察性研究且研究设计变异大,但PERT患者总体结局优于非PERT患者。
- 在具备足够能力的医院,PERT应考虑作为急性肺栓塞管理的标准。
研究设计与样本
- 系统综述,检索PubMed中「pulmonary embolism response teams」及相关MeSH词。
- 纳入比较PERT启动与非PERT结局且至少包含10例患者的研究,共26项研究、19968例患者。
主要发现
- PERT实施与死亡率下降趋势相关(8.2% vs 8.8%)。
- PERT实施与复发深静脉血栓减少趋势相关。
- PERT实施与总住院时长(6.2 vs 7.2天)和ICU时长(2.1 vs 2.8天)缩短趋势相关。
- PERT实施与出血事件减少趋势相关(7.0% vs 7.3%)。
临床怎么用
- 在具备足够能力的医院,可将PERT作为急性肺栓塞管理的标准。
- PERT模型持续优化结构、一致性和循证启动对实现其改善结局的潜力至关重要。
局限性
- 当前数据多为观察性研究。
- 研究设计存在显著变异,限制证据强度。
以上解读依据论文摘要(全文未开放获取或许可不允许翻译转载)。
原文
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2026 Apr;67(2):157-166. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.26.13572-1. ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) was first established in 2012 to aid in timely risk stratification and management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). While this model has been widely adopted in many hospitals, only recently has sufficient data accumulated to allow systematic evaluation of whether PERTs produce measurable improvements in clinical outcomes. This review examines patient outcomes with PERT team implementation, in comparison to outcomes without PERT evaluation. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for "pulmonary embolism response teams" and related Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). Eligible studies compared outcomes of PERT activation with non-PERT outcomes, and included at least ten patients. RESULTS: A total of 19,968 patients across 26 studies were included. Across the available literature, PERT implementation was associated with a trend toward lower mortality (8.2%, vs. 8.8% without PERT). PERT implementation was also associated with trends towards fewer recurrent deep venous thromboses (DVTs), shorter hospital and ICU length of stay (6.2 vs. 7.2 days total LOS, 2.1 vs. 2.8 days in ICU), and fewer bleeding events (7.0% vs. 7.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Current data is mostly observational and limited by significant variability in study design, however overall improved outcomes were seen for PERT compared to non-PERT patients. In hospitals with adequate capacity, PERT should be considered the standard of care for the management of acute pulmonary embolism. As the PERT model continues to evolve, continued optimization of PERT structure, consistency, and evidence-based activation will be critical to realizing its full potential in improving outcomes for patients with acute pulmonary embolism. PMID: 42233327 | DOI: 10.23736/S0021-9509.26.13572-1
引用
- PubMed 高证据 · 肺栓塞:Outcomes of pulmonary embolism response teams: a systematic review
供执业医师工作参考,不替代临床判断;数值与分级以指南原文为准。