Clinical Significance of Portal Hypertension Diagnosed With Bedside Ultrasound After Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Portal venous flow pulsatility detected by Doppler ultrasound is a sign of congestive heart failure in noncritically ill patients. The assessment of portal and splenic venous flows has never been reported in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: This is a case series performed in patients undergoing cardiac surgery between February 2014 and February 2015 in which portal and/or splenic venous flows were assessed by the attending anesthesiologist during surgery or by the intensivist after surgery using transthoracic echography in 9 patients or transesophageal echocardiography in 5 patients. Data collection was done retrospectively by reviewing intraoperative and postoperative monitoring documents. The technique of assessment is detailed in this article. RESULTS: We report the abnormal portal and/or splenic venous flow pulsatility from 14 patients perioperatively. At the time of pulsatility detection, patients had a median cumulative fluid balance of 3.8 L (interquartile range: 0-4.6 L) and a median right atrial pressure of 14.0 mm Hg (interquartile range: 12.0-15.5 mm Hg). In some patients (4/14), signs of right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography and/or right ventricular pressure monitoring were present. CONCLUSIONS: Doppler evaluation of portal and splenic venous flow using transthoracic echography and transesophageal echocardiography may represent a promising modality to assess end-organ venous congestion in cardiac surgery 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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".