Cardionerds: A Cardiology Podcast

CardioNerds (Drs. Apoorva Gangavelli, Jenna Skowronski, and Hannah Every) discuss the continuum of prevention and heart failure with Drs. Anu Lala and Martha Gulati. Grounded in a clinical case of a 55-year-old woman with uncontrolled hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and obesity who is on the trajectory toward heart failure, this episode unpacks a paradigm-shifting framework from a joint HFSA/ASPC Scientific Statement. The discussion explores how prevention should not be siloed from heart failure management but rather integrated across a patient’s lifespan—from primary prevention in at-risk individuals, to secondary prevention in those with established heart failure, to tertiary prevention in patients with advanced therapies such as LVADs and heart transplantation. The experts highlight the importance of aggressive risk factor management, biomarker-guided screening, the AHA’s Life’s Essential 8, and the need for multidisciplinary collaboration and systems-level change to shift heart failure care from reactive to proactive. Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Dr. Julia Marques Fernandes.

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

US Cardiology Review is now the official journal of CardioNerds! Submit your manuscript here.

CardioNerds Prevention Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

Pearls

Systemic inflammatory diseases are associated with an elevated CVD risk that has significant implications for early detection, risk Heart failure prevention is a continuum, not a checkpoint. Prevention applies at every stage—from at-risk (Stage A) through advanced/post-transplant care—and every clinical encounter is an opportunity to intervene. The AHA’s Life’s Essential 8 (diet, physical activity, nicotine exposure, sleep, BMI, blood lipids, blood glucose, blood pressure) forms the foundation at every stage.

Hypertension carries the highest population-attributable risk for heart failure of any modifiable risk factor. In the Framingham Heart Study, 91% of patients with newly diagnosed HF had pre-existing hypertension. The SPRINT trial demonstrated a 38% reduction in HF incidence with intensive blood pressure targets (<120 mm Hg systolic). Agent selection matters: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and thiazide diuretics should be prioritized for HF prevention.

Overlapping risk factors should prompt parallel, not sequential, intervention. Pharmacotherapies such as SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists target multiple pathways simultaneously (diabetes, obesity, CKD, HF risk), making them ideal for patients with cardiometabolic multimorbidity. The cardio-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome framework reinforces this integrated approach.

Biomarker screening with BNP/NT-proBNP should be used proactively in high-risk populations, not just reactively in the emergency department. Even modestly elevated natriuretic peptide levels (e.g., BNP >30 ng/L or NT-proBNP >125 ng/L) identify individuals at heightened risk for progression to symptomatic HF. The ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines give a Class IIa recommendation for natriuretic peptide screening in at-risk patients. Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) is an underutilized screening tool that provides additional insight into CKM risk.

The heart failure label does not close the prevention window—it accentuates it. Secondary prevention through GDMT optimization (quadruple therapy in HFrEF) and continued risk factor management remains critical. Tertiary prevention extends to post-LVAD and post-transplant patients, where hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and CKD management remain essential to long-term outcomes.

Show notes

For a comprehensive review, please review the full HFSA/ASPC Joint Scientific Statement: Lala A, Beavers C, Blumer V, et al. The Continuum of Prevention and Heart Failure in Cardiovascular Medicine. J Card Fail. 2026;32:75-105. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.06.013

1. What is the “continuum of prevention” framework, and how does it differ from traditional approaches to heart failure prevention?

Historically, prevention and heart failure management have been treated as separate disciplines—primary prevention handled by preventive cardiologists and treatment managed by heart failure specialists. This joint HFSA/ASPC Scientific Statement reframes prevention as a dynamic, continuous process that spans a patient’s entire lifespan, regardless of HF stage or ejection fraction.

The framework maps onto the ACC/AHA HF staging system:

Primary prevention targets Stage A (“at risk”) and Stage B (“pre-HF”) patients to reduce the burden of incident HF.

Secondary prevention targets Stage C (symptomatic) and Stage D (advanced) patients to reduce the impact of established HF through GDMT optimization and ongoing risk factor management.

Tertiary prevention encompasses risk factor management in patients with LVADs or heart transplants—populations where hypertension, diabetes, and obesity still drive outcomes.

The Central Figure of the statement illustrates that Life’s Essential 8 (blood pressure and lipid control, diabetes management, exercise, sleep, smoking cessation, weight management, and diet/nutrition counseling) forms the foundation at every stage, with pharmacologic and device-based therapies layered on top as disease progresses (Figure)

2. How do traditional risk factors drive heart failure, and what should clinicians prioritize?

Hypertension carries the greatest population-attributable risk for HF. In the Framingham Heart Study (N=5,143), HTN was associated with a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of HF, with a population-attributable risk of 39% in men and 59% in women. The SPRINT trial showed a 38% reduction in HF incidence and 25% reduction in the primary composite outcome with intensive BP targets (<120 mm Hg). Not all antihypertensives are equal for HF prevention: the ALLHAT trial showed that amlodipine carried a 38% higher risk and lisinopril a 19% higher risk of incident HF compared with chlorthalidone. The statement recommends prioritizing ACE inhibitors, ARBs, or thiazide diuretics as first-line agents when HF prevention is a goal.

Type 2 diabetes confers a 5-fold risk of HF in women and 2-fold in men. Each 5-year increment in diabetes duration is associated with a 17% increased risk of incident HF. SGLT2 inhibitors have a Class 1 recommendation for HF prevention in patients with T2DM and established CVD or high cardiovascular risk. Finerenone (nonsteroidal MRA) reduced new-onset HF by 32% in the FIGARO-DKD trial among patients with T2DM and CKD. GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce CV events in patients with T2DM and ASCVD and are recommended in current guidelines.

Obesity independently leads to myocardial dysfunction through the leptin-aldosterone-neprilysin framework, ectopic fat deposition, and neurohormonal dysregulation. The SELECT trial demonstrated that semaglutide reduced HF composite endpoint events (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.74–0.97) in patients with obesity and established CVD without T2DM. Women with obesity are at highest risk for HFpEF, while men with obesity are at highest risk for HFrEF.

Chronic kidney disease with albuminuria is deliberately included as a traditional risk factor in this statement. Albuminuria confers a 2- to 3-fold increased risk of incident HF. UACR screening is recommended for patients with T2DM and those at risk for CKD.

3. How can risk stratification tools and biomarkers be used to identify patients on the trajectory toward heart failure?

Natriuretic peptides (BNP/NT-proBNP): The ACC/AHA/HFSA guidelines give a Class IIa recommendation for BNP or NT-proBNP screening in patients at risk for HF. Even modestly elevated levels (BNP >30 ng/L or NT-proBNP >125 ng/L) are associated with heightened risk for progression to symptomatic HF. In the ARIC study, incorporating NT-proBNP reclassified 20% of older adults without HF into Stage B. Factors that affect interpretation include age, sex, obesity (lower values), and CKD (higher values).

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn): Concentrations above the 99th percentile are now included in the definition of Stage B HF. Troponin testing may complement natriuretic peptides, particularly when BNP/NT-proBNP values are ambiguous.

Risk scores: The PCP-HF equation predicts 10-year HF risk using traditional risk factors plus QRS duration. The AHA PREVENT score incorporates HF risk calculation and includes markers of kidney function (albuminuria, eGFR), though it may underestimate risk in men and Black adults. The CKM syndrome staging framework (Stages 0–4) provides a holistic approach to assessing systemic cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic risk.

4. What are the key nontraditional risk factors and cross-cutting themes in heart failure prevention?

Genetics: Pathogenic cardiomyopathy variants exist in ~1 in 200 individuals in the general population. The HFSA and ACMG recommend cascade testing to identify at-risk family members. Polygenic risk scores for dilated cardiomyopathy show a 3.8-fold risk for DCM in the top 10th percentile compared with the median.

Sex-specific considerations: Women have 2.8 times the odds of developing HFpEF, while men have similarly increased odds of HFrEF. A complete obstetric/gynecologic history is essential—preeclampsia is associated with a 4-fold increased risk of HF. Peripartum cardiomyopathy requires intentional screening in high-risk populations.

Cardiotoxic exposures: Clinicians should be aware of medications that cause direct myocardial toxicity (e.g., anthracyclines, trastuzumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors). A team-based approach with pharmacists can help optimize medication selection and risk factor modification.

Social determinants of health: Environmental exposures (air pollution, arsenic, lead, cadmium), food insecurity, financial instability, and limited healthcare access contribute to HF risk and progression. Equity-focused, risk-based prevention strategies are needed.

Psychological health: Depression is common in HF and independently associated with worse outcomes. Screening with brief questionnaires (e.g., PHQ-2) is recommended. Meditation, spirituality, and holistic wellness approaches remain underutilized.

5. What systems-level and policy changes are needed to move the needle on heart failure prevention?

Multidisciplinary HF prevention clinics that bring together preventive cardiologists, HF specialists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, dietitians, pharmacists, exercise physiologists, and genetic counselors are advocated by the statement.

EHR-embedded risk stratification could proactively flag patients on a trajectory toward HF—analogous to sepsis alerts or fall risk flags—enabling earlier intervention, particularly for patients who may not reach a cardiologist.

Cardiac rehabilitation remains underutilized, particularly in HFrEF (Class 2b recommendation) and HFpEF (not yet covered by Medicare). The HF-ACTION trial showed quality-of-life benefits, and the REHAB-HF trial showed particular benefit in older patients with HFpEF.

Policy priorities include expanding insurance coverage for preventive screening and novel therapies (SGLT2i, GLP-1 RAs, nsMRAs), reducing clinical inertia through team-based care models with closer follow-up intervals, and ensuring equitable access to evidence-based therapies across diverse populations.

Digital health and AI hold promise for personalized risk prediction, remote monitoring (e.g., wearable devices, implantable PA pressure monitors), and virtual cardiac rehabilitation to overcome access barriers.

Figure 

Lala A, Beavers C, Blumer V, et al. The continuum of prevention and heart failure in cardiovascular medicine: a joint scientific statement from the Heart Failure Society of America and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology. J Card Fail. 2026;32(1):75-105. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.06.013)

References

Key references are bolded.

Lala A, Beavers C, Blumer V, et al. The continuum of prevention and heart failure in cardiovascular medicine: a joint scientific statement from the Heart Failure Society of America and the American Society for Preventive Cardiology. J Card Fail. 2026;32(1):75-105. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.06.013

Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895-e1032. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063

Lloyd-Jones DM, Allen NB, Anderson CAM, et al. Life’s Essential 8: updating and enhancing the American Heart Association’s construct of cardiovascular health: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;146(5):e18-e43. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001078

SPRINT Research Group, Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, et al. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2103-2116. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1511939

Levy D, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Kannel WB, Ho KK. The progression from hypertension to congestive heart failure. JAMA. 1996;275(20):1557-1562. doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530440037034

Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002;288(23):2981-2997. doi:10.1001/jama.288.23.2981

Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(3):145-153. doi:10.1056/NEJM200001203420301

Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2117-2128. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1504720

Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(16):1451-1461. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2107038

Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Claggett B, et al. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(12):1089-1098. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206286

Filippatos G, Anker SD, Agarwal R, et al. Finerenone reduces risk of incident heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes: analyses from the FIGARO-DKD trial. Circulation. 2022;145(6):437-447. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057983

Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Vaduganathan M, et al. Finerenone in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2024;391(16):1475-1485. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2407107

Lincoff AM, Brown-Frandsen K, Colhoun HM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in obesity without diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(24):2221-2232. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2307563

Deanfield J, Verma S, Scirica BM, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesity and prevalent heart failure: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial. Lancet. 2024;404(10454):773-786. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01498-3 

Kosiborod MN, Abildstrøm SZ, Borlaug BA, et al. Semaglutide in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and obesity. N Engl J Med. 2023;389(12):1069-1084. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2306963

Ndumele CE, Neeland IJ, Tuttle KR, et al. A synopsis of the evidence for the science and clinical management of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023;148(20):1636-1664. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001175

Khan SS, Matsushita K, Sang Y, et al. Development and validation of the American Heart Association’s PREVENT equations. Circulation. 2024;149(6):430-449. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.067626

Khan SS, Ning H, Shah SJ, et al. 10-year risk equations for incident heart failure in the general population. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(19):2388-2397. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.057

Bozkurt B, Fonarow GC, Goldberg LR, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation for patients with heart failure: JACC expert panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(11):1454-1469. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.01.030

Packer M. Leptin-aldosterone-neprilysin axis: identification of its distinctive role in the pathogenesis of the three phenotypes of heart failure in people with obesity. Circulation. 2018;137(15):1614-1631. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.032474

Lala A, Tayal U, Hamo CE, et al. Sex differences in heart failure. J Card Fail. 2022;28(3):477-498. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2021.10.006

Bozkurt B, Coats AJS, Tsutsui H, et al. Universal definition and classification of heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23(3):352-380. doi:10.1002/ejhf.2115

Hershberger RE, Givertz MM, Ho CY, et al. Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy—a Heart Failure Society of America practice guideline. J Card Fail. 2018;24(5):281-302. doi:10.1016/j.cardfail.2018.03.004

Levine GN, Cohen BE, Commodore-Mensah Y, et al. Psychological health, well-being, and the mind-heart-body connection: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2021;143(10):e763-e783. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000947

Ezekowitz JA, Colin-Ramirez E, Ross H, et al. Reduction of dietary sodium to less than 100 mmol in heart failure (SODIUM-HF): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2022;399(10333):1391-1400. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00369-5

CardioNerds co-chairs Dr. Dinu Balanescu and Dr. Billy Joe Mullinax, along with FIT lead Dr. Shiavax Rao, discuss the evolving landscape of randomized controlled trials in pulmonary embolism with Dr. Jay Giri, interventional cardiologist, Associate Professor of Medicine, and Director of the Cardiovascular Catheterization Laboratories at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. This episode examines the historical evidence behind systemic thrombolysis, the emergence of catheter-directed therapies and mechanical thrombectomy, and the landmark RCTs – STORM-PE, PEERLESS, HI-PEITHO, and PEERLESS II – that are reshaping intermediate-risk PE management. The discussion highlights challenges in PE trial design, the critical importance of clinical deterioration as an endpoint, and why this era represents an unprecedented wave of evidence generation in PE. Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Dr. Julia Marques Fernandes.

Dr. Dinu Balanescu and Dr. Billy-Joe Mullinax are Co-chairs for the CardioNerds PE Series, developed in collaboration with the PERT Consortium.  

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

CardioNerds Pulmonary Embolism Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

Pearls:

Systemic thrombolysis in intermediate-risk PE reduces hemodynamic decompensation but at the cost of ~1.5–2% intracranial hemorrhage risk – a near-zero net benefit that has driven the search for safer catheter-based alternatives.

“Focus on clinical deterioration, not mortality” – Due to crossover design in contemporary PE RCTs, control-arm patients who decompensate are rescued with advanced therapies, biasing mortality toward the null. Clinical deterioration is the most informative endpoint to watch in HI-PEITHO, PRAGUE-26, and PEERLESS II.

HI-PEITHO is the first large RCT to demonstrate that catheter-directed fibrinolysis plus anticoagulation significantly reduces the composite of PE-related death, cardiorespiratory decompensation, or PE recurrence versus anticoagulation alone (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.20–0.77; P=0.005), with no intracranial hemorrhage in either arm.

The four major upcoming/recently reported PE RCTs (HI-PEITHO, PRAGUE-26, PEERLESS II, PE-TRACT) enroll progressively different risk populations – from the most enriched (HI-PEITHO) to the most permissive (PE-TRACT, which includes intermediate-low risk patients) – enabling a nuanced understanding of which patients benefit most from intervention.

PE device clearance follows a fundamentally different FDA pathway than structural heart devices (single-arm safety/efficacy studies vs. mandated RCTs), yet market forces and clinical need have ultimately driven industry and government to sponsor large-scale RCTs – a lesson in how evidence development can evolve organically alongside regulatory frameworks.

Notes:

Notes drafted by Dr. Shiavax Rao.

Question #1: What is the current evidence behind advanced PE therapies?

Systemic thrombolysis: Sixteen RCTs over 40 years (1972–2014) enrolling nearly 2,000 patients have studied systemic thrombolysis in intermediate-risk PE. The landmark PEITHO trial (n=1,006) showed that tenecteplase reduced the composite of death or hemodynamic collapse (2.6% vs. 5.6%; P=0.015), driven primarily by reduced hemodynamic decompensation (1.6% vs. 5.0%; P=0.002). However, this came at the cost of increased major bleeding (6.3% vs. 1.5%; P<0.001) and a ~2% rate of intracranial hemorrhage. Meta-analyses of systemic thrombolysis trials show a small absolute mortality benefit (~1–2%) that is closely offset by bleeding risk, explaining why guidelines have not broadly recommended systemic thrombolysis for intermediate-risk PE.

Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT): The ULTIMA trial (n=59) was the first RCT of ultrasound-assisted CDT (EkoSonic/EKOS system) vs. anticoagulation alone in intermediate-risk PE. CDT showed superior RV/LV ratio improvement at 24 hours (decrease of 0.30 ± 0.20 vs. 0.03 ± 0.16; P<0.001), but this difference was no longer significant at 90 days. The CANARY trial, initiated in Iran in 2019, was halted prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic but largely verified ULTIMA’s findings, with a signal that RV benefits may persist at 90 days.

Mechanical thrombectomy – single-arm data: The FLARE trial demonstrated a 25% reduction in RV/LV ratio at 48 hours with large-bore aspiration thrombectomy (FlowTriever). The EXTRACT-PE trial showed significant RV/LV ratio reduction with the Indigo aspiration system with a low major adverse event rate. The FLASH registry (FlowTriever) reported a mean 7.6 mmHg drop in mean PA pressure and RV/LV ratio decrease from 1.23 to 0.98 at 48 hours.

STORM-PE (2025): The first RCT of mechanical thrombectomy (computer-assisted vacuum thrombectomy [CAVT] with the Indigo/Penumbra system) vs. anticoagulation alone. One hundred patients were randomized across 22 sites. CAVT was superior for the primary endpoint of 48-hour RV/LV ratio reduction (0.52 vs. 0.24; difference 0.27; P<0.001), with earlier normalization of vital signs and comparable major adverse event rates (4.3% vs. 7.5%; P=0.681). Two PE-related deaths occurred in the CAVT arm. The trial was not powered for mortality or longer-term outcomes.

PEERLESS (2025): The first RCT comparing two interventional strategies head-to-head – large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (FlowTriever) vs. CDT – in 550 patients with intermediate-risk PE. The primary hierarchical win ratio composite favored LBMT (win ratio 5.01; 95% CI 3.68–6.97; P<0.001), driven primarily by fewer clinical deterioration/bailout events (1.8% vs. 5.4%; P=0.04) and substantially less post-procedural ICU use (41.6% vs. 98.6% admission rates). No significant differences in mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or major bleeding were observed. RV/LV ratio reduction was similar between arms. LBMT was associated with shorter hospital stays and fewer 30-day readmissions.

Question #2: What are the challenges with conducting RCTs in PE?

Crossover and rescue therapy: Unlike early TAVR trials where control-arm patients could not cross over to the device arm, contemporary PE trials allow crossover upon clinical deterioration. This is ethically necessary given available therapies but biases mortality toward the null, making it unlikely that any individual trial – or even a meta-analysis of the four major trials (~2,400–3,000 patients combined) – will demonstrate a mortality difference.

Heterogeneity of intermediate-risk PE: Two patients meeting ESC intermediate-high risk criteria (RV dysfunction + elevated troponin) can look clinically very different – one may be tachypneic on 5 liters of oxygen, while another is comfortable on room air. This heterogeneity complicates enrollment, endpoint detection, and generalizability.

Endpoint selection: Early PE trials relied on surrogate imaging endpoints (RV/LV ratio, PA pressure reduction, Miller score). While these demonstrate proof-of-concept, they have not moved guidelines. Clinically relevant endpoints – mortality, clinical deterioration, functional status, quality of life – are needed but require larger sample sizes and longer follow-up.

Funding and maturation of the field: Trials require buy-in from government or industry funders. It took time for the field to mature enough to estimate effect sizes for trial powering, accumulate sufficient operator experience to ensure internal validity, and for industry to recognize that market adoption required randomized evidence despite existing FDA clearance.

FDA regulatory pathway: PE devices are cleared via a 510(k) pathway requiring single-arm studies (~100–150 patients) demonstrating safety and RV/LV ratio improvement – a much lower bar than the pre-market approval pathway requiring RCTs mandated for structural heart devices (e.g., TAVR, MitraClip). While this has enabled rapid innovation and market competition, it initially reduced the incentive for industry-sponsored RCTs.

Question #3: What are the upcoming/recently reported RCT trials in PE?

HI-PEITHO (published 2026, NEJM): Multinational adaptive-design RCT of ultrasound-facilitated CDT (EkoSonic system, alteplase 2 mg bolus + 1 mg/hr/catheter × 7 hours) plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone in 544 patients with enriched intermediate-high risk PE (RV/LV ≥1.0, elevated troponin, plus ≥2 of: SBP ≤110, HR ≥100, RR >20). Primary composite of PE-related death, cardiorespiratory decompensation/collapse, or symptomatic PE recurrence within 7 days: 4.0% intervention vs. 10.3% control (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.20–0.77; P=0.005). Effect driven by reduced cardiorespiratory decompensation. Major bleeding at 7 days: 4.1% vs. 2.2% (P=0.32). No intracranial hemorrhage in either arm. Clinical deterioration measured using the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), a validated ordinal scoring system incorporating vital signs – more sensitive at detecting decompensation than binary clinical criteria.

PRAGUE-26: Czech Republic government-sponsored RCT with a design essentially identical to HI-PEITHO in terms of sample size and primary endpoint, but using standard (non-ultrasound-assisted) CDT catheters in the interventional arm. Enrolling well; results anticipated in the near term.

PEERLESS II: Industry-sponsored (Inari/Boston Scientific) RCT of large-bore mechanical thrombectomy (FlowTriever) plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone in up to 1,200 patients with enriched intermediate-high risk PE (enrichment criteria slightly less stringent than HI-PEITHO). Five-component hierarchical primary endpoint assessed via win ratio: (1) mortality, (2) clinical deterioration (defined by binary clinical criteria – pressor initiation, SBP <90 for sustained period, mechanical circulatory support, or significant respiratory decompensation/intubation – a less sensitive measure than NEWS), (3) recurrent PE admission, (4) non-deterioration-based bailout crossover at day 3, and (5) 48-hour dyspnea score. The larger sample size compensates for the less sensitive clinical deterioration definition.

PE-TRACT: NIH-sponsored, open-label, assessor-blinded RCT of CDT (any FDA-cleared device – CDT or mechanical thrombectomy, strategy trial) plus anticoagulation vs. anticoagulation alone in 500 patients with intermediate-risk PE (most permissive enrollment – includes intermediate-low risk patients). Co-primary endpoints at 3 months (peak VO₂ on cardiopulmonary exercise testing) and 12 months (NYHA functional class), analyzed sequentially. Designed to answer the longer-term functional question rather than early clinical deterioration.

Question #4: What does the future of PE research look like?

Unprecedented evidence generation: Across STORM-PE, PEERLESS, HI-PEITHO, PEERLESS II, PE-TRACT, PRAGUE-26, PEITHO-3, and high-risk PE trials (PERSEVERE, TORPEDO-NL), approximately 8–9 RCTs are enrolling or recently completed – an unparalleled volume of comparative evidence in any cardiovascular subspecialty over such a short period.

Guideline impact: The 2026 AHA/ACC PE Guideline already reflects the evolving evidence landscape, with Class 2a–2b recommendations for CDT and MT in select PE categories. Results from HI-PEITHO, PEERLESS II, PRAGUE-26, and PE-TRACT have the potential to substantially strengthen these recommendations, particularly if clinical deterioration endpoints are positive.

PERT evolution: As evidence clarifies which patients benefit from intervention, PERT programs may transition from primarily clinical decision-making bodies to systems-of-care delivery engines – analogous to STEMI systems – focused on efficient, protocol-driven care and real-world evidence generation for quality improvement.

Innovation ecosystem: The relatively permissive FDA clearance pathway has fostered a competitive device landscape with multiple manufacturers and device types, contrasting with the prolonged duopoly in the TAVR space. This competition may drive technological improvement and more favorable economics.

Caution with real-world evidence: While real-world evidence is valuable for quality improvement and systems-of-care assessment, it should be used cautiously for comparative effectiveness analyses due to irreconcilable confounding and limitations in causal inference. RCTs remain the gold standard for comparative questions.

References:

★ Rosenfield K, Klok FA, Piazza G, et al. Ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed fibrinolysis for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2026;394(22):2131-2141. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2503539

★ Lookstein RA, Konstantinides SV, Weinberg I, et al. Randomized controlled trial of mechanical thrombectomy with anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone for acute intermediate-high risk pulmonary embolism: primary outcomes from the STORM-PE trial. Circulation. 2026;153(1):21-34. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.077232

★ Jaber WA, Gonsalves CF, Stortecky S, et al. Large-bore mechanical thrombectomy versus catheter-directed thrombolysis in the management of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: primary results of the PEERLESS randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2025;151(5):260-273. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.124.072364

★ Gonsalves CF, Gibson CM, Stortecky S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of mechanical thrombectomy vs catheter-directed thrombolysis for acute hemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism: rationale and design of the PEERLESS study. Am Heart J. 2023;266:128-137. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2023.09.002

★ Sista AK, Troxel AB, Tarpey T, et al. Rationale and design of the PE-TRACT trial: a multicenter randomized trial to evaluate catheter-directed therapy for the treatment of intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. Am Heart J. 2025;281:112-122. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2024.11.016

★ Giri J, Sista AK, Weinberg I, et al. Interventional therapies for acute pulmonary embolism: current status and principles for the development of novel evidence: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;140(20):e774-e801. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000707

★ Zhang RS, Maqsood MH, Sharp ASP, et al. Efficacy and safety of anticoagulation, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or systemic thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2023;16(22):2781-2793. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2023.09.014
Additional References

Rosovsky RP, Konstantinides SV, Moriarty JM, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluating anticoagulation alone vs anticoagulation plus computer assisted vacuum thrombectomy for the treatment of intermediate-high-risk acute pulmonary embolism: rationale and design of the STORM-PE study. Am Heart J. 2025;288:1-14. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2025.03.018

Klok FA, Piazza G, Sharp ASP, et al. Ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed thrombolysis vs anticoagulation alone for acute intermediate-high-risk pulmonary embolism: rationale and design of the HI-PEITHO study. Am Heart J. 2022;251:43-53. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2022.05.011

Creager MA, Barnes GD, Giri J, et al. 2026 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ACEP/CHEST/SCAI/SHM/SIR/SVM/SVN guideline for the evaluation and management of acute pulmonary embolism in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(7):e77-e206. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.11.027

Piazza G. Advanced management of intermediate- and high-risk pulmonary embolism: JACC focus seminar. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(18):2117-2127. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.028

Zuo Z, Yue J, Dong BR, et al. Thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;4(4):CD004437. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004437.pub6

Kroupa J, Buk M, Weichet J, et al. A pilot randomised trial of catheter-directed thrombolysis or standard anticoagulation for patients with intermediate-high risk acute pulmonary embolism (CANARY). EuroIntervention. 2022;18(8):e657-e665. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-22-00194

Zuin M, Lang I, Chopard R, et al. Innovation in catheter-directed therapy for intermediate-high-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2024;17(20):2390-2408. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2024.07.037

Harvey JJ, Huang S, Uberoi R. Catheter-directed therapies for the treatment of high risk (massive) and intermediate risk (submassive) acute pulmonary embolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;8(8):CD013083. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013083.pub2

Kim JM, Horbal SR, Mewaldt C, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism: trends and practice patterns in the PERT Consortium Registry (2016-2024). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(13):1271-1283. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.12.044

Planer D, Yanko S, Matok I, et al. Catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with systemic thrombolysis and anticoagulation in patients with intermediate- or high-risk pulmonary embolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2023;195(24):E833-E843. doi:10.1503/cmaj.221655

Farmakis IT, Binder H, Chopard R, et al. Reperfusion strategies for acute pulmonary embolism: design and rationale of RECONNECT-PE – a living systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2026;295:107365. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2026.107365

Rashedi S, Leyva H, Hamade N, et al. Fibrinolytic therapy for thromboembolic diseases: approved indications and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;86(14):1395-1416. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.07.048

Creager MA, Barnes GD, Giri J. A field in transition: catheter-based therapy in the 2026 AHA/ACC acute pulmonary embolism guideline. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026;87(13):1284-1288. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2026.01.024

CardioNerds (Drs. Apoorva Gangavelli, Rebecca Garber, and Tina Reddy discuss INOCA with Dr. Claire Raphael. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy intern, student doctor Pacey Wetstein.

This episode was produced as part of the CardioNerds Academy curriculum by House Einthoven under the guidance of House Chief, Dr. Apoorva Gangavelli, and Academy Program Director, Dr. Gurleen Kaur. A matching review article will be published in US Cardiology Review, the official journal of CardioNerds.

Non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) is more common than often recognized, particularly in women and individuals with risk factors like diabetes or hypertension. Conditions such as INOCA, ANOCA, and MINOCA can cause ischemia and chest pain despite “clean” angiograms, often due to microvascular dysfunction, coronary spasms, or subtle plaque. Diagnosing these conditions requires advanced imaging or invasive studies to assess blood flow and vessel function. Treatment focuses on reducing cardiovascular risk with aspirin, statins, ACE inhibitors, or ARBs, and managing symptoms with beta-blockers or calcium channel blockers. The key takeaway: A normal angiogram doesn’t rule out disease, and these patients need a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to care.

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

CardioNerds Pulmonary Embolism Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

Pearls:

When patients present with chest pain but do not have obstructive coronary artery disease, the story does not end there! Other pathologies that must be ruled out include spontaneous coronary artery disease (SCAD), coronary vasospasm, microvascular disease, Takotsubo, and cardiomyopathy. A TTE can help rule out other pathologies. Cardiac MRI can help identify myocardial fibrosis, scarring, or edema that may suggest prior events or alternative diagnoses. 

About 60-70% of INOCA cases are in women. However, it is estimated that about half of the patients with so-called “normal” angiograms actually have positive stress tests. Patients with elevated troponins are more likely to have recurrent events. Patients with INOCA are more likely to come back to the ER multiple times before getting diagnosed. These patients have a 1.4x increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events (such as HFpEF, MI, and recurrent hospitalizations for cardiac chest pain). 

INOCA is a complex condition with a variety of causes, primarily linked to microvascular disease. Within microvascular disease, there are different “endotypes” (types or subcategories) classified by specific characteristics. In centers that conduct microvascular testing, patients are categorized as endothelium-independent or endothelium-dependent, based on their responses to adenosine or acetylcholine during testing. Additionally, microvascular disease can be classified as either structural or functional, depending on the results of tests measuring microvascular resistance.

The field is moving towards the term ANOCA, or angina with non-obstructive coronary arteries, to include patients with anginal symptoms without objective ischemia. 

The field is moving toward using genotyping and hemodynamic testing to guide first-line therapies for microvascular disease, a heterogeneous condition. Current treatments mostly come from obstructive coronary artery disease, but specialized approaches—like the coronary sinus reducer—may offer unique benefits for microvascular disease.

Treatment includes sublingual nitroglycerin, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, and beta-blockers. Remember to also treat any additional comorbidities, such as diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Unfortunately, many of these patients may still have refractory chest pain, so it is important to reassure them. These patients can still exercise, but they may be hesitant to do so for fear of having chest pain. Cardiac rehab may be helpful for these patients as it helps them build up their tolerance.

References

Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al; Writing Committee Members. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(3):e18-e114. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001039

Hwang D, Park S, Koo B-K. Ischemia with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. JACC: Asia. 2023;3(2):169-180. doi:10.1016/j.jacasi.2023.01.004

Yukselen Z, Majmundar V, Dasari M, Kumar PA, Singh Y. Chest pain risk stratification in the emergency department: current perspectives. Open Access Emerg Med. 2024;16:29-43. doi:10.2147/OAEM.S419657

This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes. 

The following question refers to Section 5.2.1 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines.

The question is asked by Thomas Jefferson medical student and CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Grace Qiu, answered first by Henry Ford Interventional cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Li Pang, and then by expert faculty Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue.

Dr. O’Donoghue is a cardiologist, senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group, and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School who holds the McGillycuddy-Logue Endowed Chair in Cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. She was the Vice Chair of the Writing Committee for the 2025 ACS Guidelines.





Question #2

A 63-year-old woman presented to the emergency room for chest pain. She described having exertional chest pain for the past two months and had an episode of severe pain after dinner 3 days ago. She went to bed and slept it off.  She told her children today at a family gathering, and was immediately brought to the ED by her daughter. She has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. She was asymptomatic and normotensive in the ED. Labs show a down-trending troponin and an elevated NT-proBNP but are otherwise unremarkable. Her ECG showed Q waves with ST elevation in V2-V4. She was treated with aspirin and heparin drip, and taken to the cath lab. Coronary angiogram showed complete proximal LAD occlusion with right-to-left collaterals, without significant residual disease elsewhere. She remains asymptomatic and is stable, both hemodynamically and electrically.

What is the next best step with regard to reperfusion and anti-thrombotic management?

A

Proceed with primary PCI to LAD 

B

Medical management with aspirin and enoxaparin 

C

Medical management with aspirin and clopidogrel

D

Medical management with aspirin and ticagrelor

 





Answer #2

Explanation 

The Correct answer is D

In patients who are stable with STEMI and have a totally occluded infarct-related artery >24 hours after symptom onset and are without evidence of ongoing ischemia, acute severe HF, or life-threatening arrhythmia, PPCI should not be performed due to lack of benefit. (Class 3, LOE B-R)

The benefit of PPCI begins to diminish after >12 hours from symptom onset, but there appears to be continued benefit through approximately 24 hours. 

In stable asymptomatic patients with an occluded artery >48 hours after symptom onset, routine PCI has not been shown to be beneficial in the absence of ongoing ischemia. The relative utility of routine PCI for asymptomatic patients with STEMI between 24 and 48 hours from symptom onset is less rigorously tested.

PCI is not recommended for an occluded infarct-related artery if the patient is asymptomatic and has a completed infarct. MACE outcomes were similar in those with an occluded infarct-related artery who underwent medical therapy versus those who underwent PCI 3 to 28 days after an MI (Occluded Artery Trial [OAT]), and results were no different at 7-year follow-up. Similar findings were noted in the DECOPI (Desobstruction Coronaire en Post-Infarctus) trial, which enrolled patients with an occluded artery and Q waves on the ECG presenting 2 to 15 days after symptom onset.

However, coronary revascularization should be considered for patients with late presentations with continued signs and symptoms of ischemia, including cardiogenic shock, acute severe HF, persistent angina, and life-threatening arrhythmias. 

Main Takeaway

In patients who are stable with STEMI who have a totally occluded infarct-related artery >24 hours after symptom onset and are without evidence of ongoing ischemia, acute severe HF, or life-threatening arrhythmia, PPCI should not be performed due to lack of benefit.

Guideline Loc.

Section 5.2.1

CardioNerds (Amit and Dan), Billy Joe Mullinax, and Saahil Jumkhawala discuss the long term management of pulmonary embolism with Dr. Soophia Naydenov.  The episode focuses on the approach to patients who struggle with persistent symptoms like dyspnea and fatigue even after completing the acute phase of anticoagulation. This spectrum of disease, ranging from mild post-PE impairment to chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), requires a structured follow-up. The discussion covers the critical importance of identifying CTEPH early, the necessary timelines for follow-up, and the appropriate objective screening tools and invasive testing to guide patient care toward full functional recovery. Audio editing by CardioNerds academy intern, Grace Qiu.

Dr. Dinu Balanescu and Dr. Billy-Joe Mullinax are Co-chairs for the CardioNerds PE Series, developed in collaboration with the PERT Consortium.  

Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values.

CardioNerds Pulmonary Embolism Page
CardioNerds Episode Page
CardioNerds Academy
Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll

CardioNerds Journal Club
Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!
Check out CardioNerds SWAG!
Become a CardioNerds Patron!

Acronyms

PE: Pulmonary Embolism

PERT: Pulmonary Embolism Response Team

CTEPH: Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

QL: Quality of Life

VTE: Venous Thromboembolism

DASH: D-dimer, Age, Sex, History of non-provoked PE (a risk score)

CPET: Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing

PFTs: Pulmonary Function Tests

VQ Scan: Ventilation-Perfusion Scan

DOACs: Direct Oral Anticoagulants

TPA: Tissue Plasminogen Activator (Thrombolytics)

ECMO: Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Pearls:

Post-PE “Syndrome” is a Spectrum: It is more accurately a spectrum of disease (sequelae of PE) rather than a single syndrome, ranging from mild fatigue/dyspnea to the most severe form, CTEPH.

Structured Follow-up is Mandatory: All PE survivors need a structured follow-up, typically with checkpoints at 3, 6, 12, and 16–24 months, with the primary goal being to detect CTEPH, the deadliest, yet potentially curable, disease on the spectrum.

Screening Should Be Objective and Practical: When screening for persistent symptoms, use objective assessment tools like the Post-VTE Functional Status (PVFS) scale or the Modified Medical Research Council (MMR-C) scale, as highly comprehensive but cumbersome tools (like the PE Quality of Life questionnaire) may not be practical for routine clinical use. Recurrence Risk Scores Aid in Anticoagulation Duration: Simple scores like the DASH score or the HERDO2 score (for women) can provide guidance when considering the continuation versus discontinuation of anticoagulation after the initial treatment phase.

Invasive Testing for Persistent Symptoms: If a patient remains symptomatic at the 6-month mark despite normal non-invasive testing (chest X-ray, ECG, PFTs, six-minute walk, echo, VQ scan, CPET), consider invasive testing such as Right Heart Catheterization (RHC) at rest or with exercise, or an invasive CPET.

Notes:

Notes drafted by Saahil Jumkhawala.

1. The Spectrum of Post-PE Disease

The term “post-PE syndrome” should be used with caution, as it refers to a spectrum of disease rather than a single entity.

This spectrum includes symptoms (sequelae) that exist in a patient’s life following an incidental PE event that they did not have before.

On one extreme is Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension (CTEPH):

The definition is clear, but it is the most deadly type, though thankfully rare (2% to 4%).

It involves a residual clot and pulmonary hypertension identifiable at rest.

In the middle is Chronic Thromboembolic Disease (CTED):

Patients may have residual defects seen on a VQ or CT scan, but they do not have pulmonary hypertension.

On the other side is a milder disease, which can include fatigue, dyspnea, or a patient’s perceived impairment, where the definitions of CTEPH and CTED are not met, but the patient remains symptomatic.

2. Structured Follow-up and Screening for Post-PE Symptoms

Structured follow-up is key for all PE survivors, though the structure may vary based on available resources (PCP, Cardiology, Pulmonary, or multidisciplinary clinic).

Recommended Timeline for Follow-up: Data from studies like ELOPE and FOCUS suggest checkpoints at 3, 6, 12, and up to 16 to 24 months.

This timeline is designed to identify patients who may develop CTEPH.

88% of patients who develop CTEPH will be identified within about a year.

A structured follow-up can reduce the delay in CTEPH diagnosis from 10–12 months to 4–6 months.

Personal Practice Note: A quick 2–3 week/30-day check-in is recommended for severely ill patients (e.g., those who had TPA, profound shock, or ECMO support) to ensure medication compliance, manage symptoms, and identify red flags.

Screening Tools (Objective Assessment):

The first step is an inventory of patient symptoms, leaning toward objective rather than subjective assessment.

Recommended Simple Tools:

Modified Medical Research Council (MMR-C) for dyspnea evaluation.

Post-VTE Functional Status (PVFS) scale.

The Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (QL) questionnaire is comprehensive but long, making it tedious and better suited for research.

Future Utility: Technology (AI/electronic tools) may assist in administering these questionnaires before the clinic visit, presenting the information as a “dashboard” for the provider.

3. Management of Persistent Symptoms and Further Testing

Initial Non-Invasive Tests (Often done at 3 months):

Echocardiogram

VQ Scan

Full PFTs

Six-minute walk

CPET

Further Evaluation for Persistent Symptoms (e.g., at 6 months): If non-invasive tests (Chest X-ray, ECG, CPET) are normal but symptoms persist, more invasive testing should be considered as the patient has not returned to baseline.

Repeat VQ scan or echocardiogram if symptoms have changed.

Right Heart Catheterization (RHC) at rest or with exercise.

Invasive CPET.

PA gram (Pulmonary Angiogram) to assess vasculature.

4. Recurrence Risk and Anticoagulation Duration

The decision to continue or discontinue anticoagulation depends on the patient’s risk factors, the situation of the PE (provoked or unprovoked), presence of active cancer, and patient preference.

Recurrence Risk Scores:

Simple scores are preferred for practicality.

DASH Score.

HERDO2 Score (particularly for women).

The Vienna Score can be considered if the question is whether to restart anticoagulation after a disruption.

Role of D-dimer in Abbreviation: While D-dimer can be used to guide the decision to restart anticoagulation after a planned pause (if D-dimer is high, resume), patient symptoms are preferable to guide management decisions like early abbreviation.

5. Prevention of Post-PE Syndrome

Currently, there is no clear tool known to prevent the post-PE syndrome/spectrum of disease.

Best Current Advice for Prevention/Recovery:

Anticoagulation compliance.

Pulmonary rehabilitation, which aids in faster recovery.

General precautions, such as smoking cessation and body weight management.

Future Research: Ongoing trials are investigating whether acute management strategies (e.g., using thrombolytics in intermediate-risk PE) can prevent long-term sequelae. (The PYTHO trial did not show a reduced rate of CTEPH in intermediate-risk PE patients who received thrombolytics).

References:

Khan, F., Tritschler, T., Kahn, S. R., & Rodger, M. A. “Venous Thromboembolism.” The Lancet, vol. 398, no. 10294, 2021, pp. 64-77. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32658-1.

Kearon, C., & Kahn, S. R. “Long-Term Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism.” Blood, vol. 135, no. 5, 2020, pp. 317-325. doi:10.1182/blood.2019002364.

Kahn, S. R., & de Wit, K. “Pulmonary Embolism.” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 387, no. 1, 2022, pp. 45-57. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp2116489.

Di Nisio, M., van Es, N., & Büller, H. R. “Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism.” The Lancet, vol. 388, no. 10063, 2016, pp. 3060-3073. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30514-1.

Chopard, R., Albertsen, I. E., & Piazza, G. “Diagnosis and Treatment of Lower Extremity Venous Thromboembolism: A Review.” JAMA, vol. 324, no. 17, 2020, pp. 1765-1776. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17272.