Review of Ambulatory Pulmonary Artery Catheterization in the Management of Advanced Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of pulmonary artery catheterization (PAC) has declined secondary to associated complications and lack of demonstrable efficacy in the inpatient setting. Few studies have been published on the use of PAC in nonacute heart failure (HF) patients. The purpose of this study was to review the use of PAC in guiding advanced therapy in nonacute ambulatory HF patients. A retrospective observational study assessing our group's practice pattern with regard to the use of PAC in 515 ambulatory HF patients, outcomes, and adverse events that resulted from its use was performed. A total of 159 ambulatory HF patients were referred for PAC; 7% underwent heart transplant, 6% had ventricular assist device (VAD) placement, 18% underwent inotropic therapy, and 48% had addition of therapy while 14% had subtraction of therapy. Adverse events occurred in 4% of ambulatory PAC. Patients who underwent heart transplant, VAD, or inotropic therapy had significantly elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressures, mean pulmonary artery pressures, and depressed cardiac index. Patients selected for inotropic therapy also had significantly elevated right atrial pressures and depressed ejection fractions. PAC use safely guided medical therapy in more than half of the nonacute ambulatory patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".