Poor correlation between hemodynamic and echocardiographic indexes of left ventricular performance in the operating room and intensive care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare hemodynamic and echocardiographic indexes of left ventricular performance. DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis of four clinical trials. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Cardiac surgery patients. INTERVENTION: Left ventricular performance was evaluated using left ventricular stroke work index (LVSWI) calculated from the pulmonary artery catheter and both fractional area change and regional wall motion score index (RWMSI) measured from transesophageal echocardiography. Measures of left ventricular performance were obtained before and after bypass (group 1, n = 30), during acute increase and decrease in preload (group 2, n = 14), after administration of inhaled prostacyclin or placebo in patients with pulmonary hypertension (group 3, n = 20), and in hemodynamically unstable patients in the intensive care unit at admission and at 2 and 4 hrs (group 4, n = 20). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 186 simultaneous LVSWI, fractional area change, and RWMSI were analyzed and compared. Patients with RWMSI <1.3 had a LVSWI of 23.4 +/- 10.3 g.m.m compared with 18.4 +/- 7.2 g.m.m in those with RWMSI >1.3 (p =.0349). Subdividing fractional area change into three different groups (> or =50%, 25% to 49%, and < or =24%), the corresponding values of LVSWI were 22.3 +/- 9.7 g.m.m, 22.2 +/- 10.8 g.m.m, and 17.7 +/- 5.5 g.m.m, respectively (p =.5114). Correlations between LVSWI and RWMSI changes ranged from -0.28 to 0.16 (p values from.31 to.94). Correlations between LVSWI and fractional area change changes ranged from -0.62 to 0.22 (p values from.07 to.95). CONCLUSION: There is a significant discrepancy and limited relationship between the hemodynamic and echocardiographic evaluation of left ventricular performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".