Clinical Outcomes Associated with Statin Use in Pulmonary Embolism: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents one of the most serious complications of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Conflicting studies indicate that statins could play a role in preventing recurrent VTE or improving survival in patients with PE. This review aims to assess the impact of statin use on clinical outcomes in patients with PE. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library to identify studies evaluating the impact of statin therapy in patients with PE. The search covered all records from inception to 21 September 2025. Studies were deemed eligible if they included adult patients with PE, investigated statin and reported clinical outcomes such as mortality, recurrent PE, recurrent VTE, or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The methodological quality of the included observational studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: A total of twelve observational studies were included; sample sizes ranged from fewer than 400 patients to nearly 200,000, with follow-up durations spanning from 30 days to more than 5 years. Statin use was associated with reduced short-term and all-cause mortality in large registry analyses, though smaller studies showed no difference. Most cohorts reported lower VTE recurrence among statin users, with some variation across settings. Overall, evidence suggests a potential benefit of statins in reducing mortality and VTE recurrence in patients with pulmonary embolism. Conclusions: Real-world data suggest that statin therapy may reduce both short-term mortality and VTE recurrence following PE, though findings vary depending on study quality and population characteristics. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".