MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981354577 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.1071

P4690Effects of pulmonary artery wedge pressure on right ventricular pulsatile loading in pulmonary hypertension: a reappraisal based on pulmonary arterial isobaric stiffness

2019· article· en· W2981354577 on OpenAlexaff
D. S. Chemla, Emmanuelle Berthelot, Jason Weatherald, Edmund Lau, Pierre Attal, David Boulate, David Montani, Patrick Jourdain, Marc Humbert, Patrick Assayag, Philippe Hervé

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary wedge pressureCardiologyPulmonary arteryPulmonary hypertensionInternal medicineIsobaric processVascular resistancePulsatile flowArterial stiffnessBlood pressureHemodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is associated with stiffening of pulmonary arteries. Previous studies have suggested that high pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) in postcapillary PH (Pc-PH) further augments PA stiffness at a given level of pulmonary vascular resistance as compared to pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). However, these studies do not take into account differences in distending pressure (mean PA pressure, mPAP), which has an effect on stiffness due to non-linear stress-strain behavior of arteries. Purpose To compare total PA stiffness between Pc-PH and idiopathic PAH (iPAH) studied at similar mPAP (isobaric stiffness). Methods This was an analysis of right heart catheterization results obtained in 112 Pc-PH and 112 iPAH patients extracted from the French PAH network registry and matched for mPAP (median 38 vs 39 mmHg, P=NS), age (70.5 years each) and sex (64% female each). Total PA stiffness was calculated as the ratio of PA pulse pressure to indexed stroke volume. Results Total PA stiffness (n=224) increased with mPAP (Spearman's rho = 0.66) and decreased with PAWP (rho = - 0.17) (each P<0.01). The isobaric stiffness was lower in Pc-PH (median (IQR) = 0.91 (0.64–1.39) mmHg/mL/m2) than in iPAH (1.18 (0.83–1.62) mmHg/mL/m2, P<0.01). The patients were then stratified according to their mPAP (25–35 mmHg, n=74 (37/37); 36–43 mmHg, n=75 (34/41); and 44–66 mmHg, n=75 (41/34)). The isobaric stiffness was lower in Pc-PH than iPAH in the 1st mPAP tertile (0.62 vs 0.83 mmHg/mL/m2, P=0.06), in the 2nd mPAP tertile (0.76 vs 1.22 mmHg/mL/m2, P<0.01) and in the 3rd mPAP tertile (1.41 vs 1.77 mmHg/mL/m2, P<0.01). The pulmonary vascular resistance was lower in Pc-PH than iPAH in every mPAP tertile (each P<0.01). Finally, Pc-PH had a higher indexed stroke volume than iPAH (37 (29–48) vs 32 (27–40) mL/m2, P<0.01) while systolic PA pressure and PA pulse pressure were similar. Conclusion Unexpectedly, the isobaric pulmonary arterial stiffness was lower in Pc-PH than iPAH patients. It is proposed that PAWP attenuates the increase in RV pulsatile loading in PH when the natural high-strain-induced stiffening was accounted for. This may contribute to a less impaired right ventricular-PA coupling leading to higher indexed stroke volume in Pc-PH than iPAH despite similar PA pressure. At every mPAP level, both the lower PA stiffness and lower pulmonary vascular resistance in Pc-PH than in iPAH may contribute to explain differences in the pressure overload-induced right ventricular adaptation between the two diseased groups, a point that deserves to be confirmed by further studies. Acknowledgement/Funding University regular funds

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→