MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiogenic shock: predictors of outcome based on right and left ventricular size and function at presentation

2005· article· en· W1977001986 on OpenAlex
Lisa A. Mendes, Michael H. Picard, Lynn A. Sleeper, Christopher Thompson, Alice K. Jacobs, Harvey D. White, Judith S. Hochman, Ravin Davidoff

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCoronary Artery Disease · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery diseaseShock (circulatory)Cardiac indexHemodynamicsCardiac output

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective To determine the characteristics and prognostic importance of right ventricular (RV) dilatation and dysfunction in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to left ventricular (LV) dysfunction enrolled in the Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock (SHOCK) trial. Methods LV and RV size and function were quantified by echocardiography in 99 patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to predominant LV dysfunction. Results For all patients, RV dysfunction was not associated with a poor 1-year survival. When the 59 patients with RV dysfunction were stratified into two morphologic groups based upon LV-to-RV end-diastolic area ratio (LV/RV) < or ≥2, the presence of disproportionate RV enlargement (LV/RV <2) was associated with inferior myocardial infarction (80%) and right coronary artery culprit disease (79%). In contrast, the index myocardial infarction in patients with predominant LV enlargement (LV/RV ≥2) was anterior (69%) and associated with left anterior descending artery disease (64%). Patients with LV/RV <2 had significantly higher right atrial pressures (20.1±5.2 compared with 14.5±8.9 mmHg, P=0.001) and lower RV fractional area change (20.4±8.7 compared with 33.5±11.0%, P=0.0001), heart rate (87±21 compared with 106±23 beats/min, P=0.006) and cardiac index (1.5±0.5 compared with 2.0 ±0.9 l/min per m2, P=0.007) than patients with LV/RV ≥2. Despite the hemodynamic profile and severity of RV dysfunction in the LV/RV <2 group, 12-month survival was significantly greater in these patients (70% LV/RV <2 compared with 34% LV/RV ≥2, P=0.027). Conclusions In patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to predominant LV failure, the presence of RV dilatation and dysfunction identifies a subgroup of patients with predominant inferior myocardial infarction and an improved long-term prognosis. To determine the prognostic importance of right ventricular dilatation and dysfunction in patients with cardiogenic shock, left and right ventricular size and function were studied by echocardiography in 99 patients enrolled in the SHOCK trial. The presence of disproportionate right ventricular enlargement compared to the left ventricle was associated with inferior MI (80%) and right coronary artery culprit disease (79%). In contrast, the index MI in patients with predominant LV enlargement was anterior (69%) and associated with left anterior descending artery disease (64%). The one-year survival was significantly greater in the patients with disproportionate RV enlargement.Thus in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to predominant LV failure, the presence of RV dilatation and dysfunction identifies a subgroup of patients with predominant inferior MI and an improved long term prognosis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.493

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it