Diastolic Pressure Difference to Classify Pulmonary Hypertension in the Assessment of Heart Transplant Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The diastolic pressure difference (DPD) is recommended to differentiate between isolated postcapillary and combined pre-/postcapillary pulmonary hypertension (Cpc-PH) in left heart disease (PH-LHD). However, in usual practice, negative DPD values are commonly calculated, potentially related to the use of mean pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP). We used the ECG to gate late-diastolic PAWP measurements. We examined the method’s impact on calculated DPD, PH-LHD subclassification, hemodynamic profiles, and mortality. Methods and Results: We studied patients with advanced heart failure undergoing right heart catheterization to assess cardiac transplantation candidacy (N=141). Pressure tracings were analyzed offline over 8 to 10 beat intervals. Diastolic pulmonary artery pressure and mean PAWP were measured to calculate the DPD as per usual practice (diastolic pulmonary artery pressure–mean PAWP). Within the same intervals, PAWP was measured gated to the ECG QRS complex to calculate the QRS-gated DPD (diastolic pulmonary artery pressure–QRS-gated PAWP). Outcomes occurring within 1 year were collected retrospectively from chart review. Overall, 72 of 141 cases demonstrated PH-LHD. Within PH-LHD, the QRS-gated DPD yielded higher calculated DPD values (3 [−1 to 6] versus 0 [−4 to 3] mm Hg; P <0.01) and a greater proportion of Cpc-PH (24% versus 8%; P <0.01) versus the usual practice DPD. Cases reclassified as Cpc-PH based on QRS-gated DPD demonstrated higher pulmonary arterial pressures versus isolated postcapillary pulmonary hypertension ( P <0.05). One-year mortality was similar between PH-LHD groups. Conclusions: The DPD calculated in usual practice is underestimated in PH-LHD, which may classify Cpc-PH patients as isolated postcapillary pulmonary hypertension. The QRS-gated DPD reclassifies a subset of PH-LHD patients from isolated postcapillary pulmonary hypertension to Cpc-PH, which is characterized by an adverse hemodynamic profile.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".