Impact of Patent Foramen Ovale on In-Hospital Outcomes in Acute Pulmonary Embolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) may complicate acute pulmonary embolism (PE) by enabling paradoxical embolism, but its clinical impact remains unclear. We evaluated the characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients hospitalized with PE with or without PFO. Methods: Using the National Inpatient Sample database, adult patients admitted with acute PE between 2016 and 2020 were identified via ICD-10 codes. Patients were grouped based on whether they had concomitant PFO. Clinical characteristics, advanced therapies, and in-hospital outcomes were compared between patients with and without PFO. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, with outcomes reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We identified 903,230 adult patients hospitalized with acute PE, among whom 4,860 (0.54%) had a PFO. Patients with concomitant PE and PFO were younger (59.4 ± 15.9 vs. 63 ± 16.5 years, P < 0.001) and presented with more severe clinical features, including higher rates of saddle PE (17.7% vs. 9%, P < 0.001) and cor pulmonale (17.9% vs. 8.3%, P < 0.001). They required significantly more frequent interventions, such as catheter-directed thrombolysis (7.4% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001). After multivariable adjustment, PFO presence was associated with significantly increased odds of stroke (aOR 25.5, 95% CI 19.8 - 32.8; P < 0.001) and peripheral embolism (aOR 13.7, 95% CI 10.5 - 18.0; P < 0.001) but not increased in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.9, 95% CI 0.6 - 1.3; P = 0.702). Conclusion: In this nationwide study, PFO in patients with acute PE was linked to greater clinical severity and more frequent advanced interventions. Prospective studies are needed to define optimal screening strategies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".