Echocardiographic Predictors of Change in Left Ventricular Diastolic Pressure in Heart Failure Patients Receiving Nesiritide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the usefulness of currently accepted echocardiographic parameters of diastolic function to assess the acute change in left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) following the administration of nesiritide in a heart failure population. METHODS: In 25 heart failure patients (15 with systolic dysfunction, 10 with preserved ejection fraction [EF]), Doppler echocardiography, right and left heart catheterization, and invasive biventricular pressure hemodynamics were obtained at baseline and 30 minutes after nesiritide infusion. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients had sufficient echocardiographic images for analysis. The mean age was 60 +/- 11 years, 48% were male, 56% had coronary artery disease, and 64% had hypertension. Right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) had the highest correlation with LV filling pressure: pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), pre-A wave LV, and LVEDP (r = 0.66, P = 0.0009; r = 0.63, P = 0.002; r = 0.72, P = 0.0002, respectively). Following nesiritide administration, the mean PCWP decreased from 17.1 +/- 7.8 mmHg at baseline to 9.6 +/- 6.2 mmHg (P < 0.001). Change in RVSP had the highest correlation with change in PCWP (r =-0.67, P = 0.10) and change in LVEDP (r =-0.71, P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Echocardiographic parameters are frequently assessed in attempts to estimate left heart diastolic pressures. In heart failure patients, RVSP appears to be the best predictor of LVEDP, outperforming tissue Doppler E/E'. RVSP was found to be the best echocardiographic predictor of change in LV filling pressure with intravenous vasodilator therapy in heart failure patients. RVSP may provide a noninvasive means of assessing response to cardiac therapy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".