Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2026

A Porcine Model of Acute Autologous Pulmonary Embolism
Published on: September 6, 2024
Outcomes of pulmonary embolism response teams: a systematic review
Elena Drews1, Ashley Yearwood2, Esteban Aguayo3
1Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA - edrews@mednet.ucla.edu.
Insights
Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT) show a trend toward improved patient outcomes, including lower mortality and shorter hospital stays. PERT should be considered standard care for acute pulmonary embolism management.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Pulmonary Medicine
- Health Services Research
Background:
- Pulmonary embolism response teams (PERT) were established in 2012 for acute pulmonary embolism (PE) management.
- Systematic evaluation of PERT's clinical impact is now possible due to accumulated data.
- This review compares patient outcomes with and without PERT implementation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the impact of PERT implementation on patient outcomes in acute PE.
- To compare clinical outcomes between patients managed with PERT and those without.
Main Methods:
- A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed for studies on pulmonary embolism response teams.
- Eligible studies compared PERT activation outcomes with non-PERT outcomes, including at least ten patients.
Main Results:
- 26 studies involving 19,968 patients were analyzed.
- PERT implementation showed a trend toward lower mortality (8.2% vs. 8.8%) and fewer recurrent DVTs.
- Trends indicated shorter hospital and ICU lengths of stay and reduced bleeding events with PERT.
Conclusions:
- Observational data suggests improved outcomes for PERT compared to non-PERT management of acute PE.
- PERT should be considered the standard of care for acute PE in hospitals with adequate capacity.
- Optimizing PERT structure and activation is crucial for maximizing patient outcome improvements.
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.
Related Concept Videos
Pulmonary Embolism II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Pulmonary Embolism III: Nursing Management
Pulmonary Embolism I: Introduction
Pulmonary Embolism I: Introduction
Flail Chest-II
Assessment:
1. Clinical Evaluation:
History:
Acute Coronary Syndrome V: Nursing Management