The pulmonary artery wedge pressure response to sustained exercise is time-variant in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The clinical and prognostic significance of 'exaggerated' elevations in pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) during symptom-limited exercise testing is increasingly recognised. However, the paucity of normative data makes the identification of abnormal responses challenging. Our objectives was to describe haemodynamic responses that reflect normal adaptation to submaximal exercise in a group of community-dwelling, older, non-dyspnoeic adults. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy volunteers (16 men/12 women; 55±6 years) were studied during rest and two consecutive stages of cycle ergometry, at targeted heart rates of 100 bpm (light exercise) and 120 bpm (moderate exercise). Right-heart catheterisation was performed to measure pulmonary artery pressures, both early (2 min) and after sustained (7 min) exercise at each intensity. RESULTS: End-expiratory PAWP at baseline was 11±3 mm Hg and increased to 22±5 mm Hg at early-light exercise (p<0.01). At sustained-light exercise, PAWP declined to 17±5 mm Hg, remaining elevated versus baseline (p<0.01). PAWP increased again at early-moderate exercise to 20±6 mm Hg but did not exceed the values observed at early-light exercise, and declined further to 15±5 mm Hg at sustained-moderate exercise (p<0.01 vs baseline). When analysed at 30 s intervals, mean and diastolic pulmonary artery pressures peaked at 180 (IQR=30) s and 130 (IQR=90) s, respectively, and both declined significantly by 420 (IQR=30) s (both p<0.01) of light exercise. Similar temporal patterns were observed at moderate exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The range of PAWP responses to submaximal exercise is broad in health, but also time-variant. PAWP may routinely exceed 20 mm Hg early in exercise. Initial increases in PAWP and mean pulmonary artery pressures do not necessarily reflect abnormal cardiopulmonary physiology, as pressures may normalise within a period of minutes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".