Body Habitus Considerations During Right Heart Catheterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Obese and overweight body habitus are common among patients undergoing right heart catheterization for suspected pulmonary hypertension, but previous studies have described only patients with severe obesity. This study examined the effect of body habitus on intracardiac pressures, thermodilution cardiac output (TDCO), indirect Fick (iFick) cardiac output (CO), and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) in subjects with normal cardiopulmonary hemodynamics. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on healthy volunteers and patients referred for right heart catheterization for dyspnea of unknown origin with normal hemodynamics. Of the 65 subjects (53 ± 14 years; 51% female), 31% were normal weight, 49% were overweight, and 20% had obesity, as defined by a body mass index of 30-39.9 kg/m 2 . Mixed venous oxygen saturations and intracardiac pressures were compared across body mass index categories. Agreement between iFick CO calculated by 3 formulae, and TDCO and PVR was examined. Results No differences in intracardiac pressures were observed, but mixed venous oxygen saturations were lower in the obese group. iFick CO underestimated TDCO, particularly with the LaFarge formula, with a systematic difference of 0.33 L/min for every 1 L/min increase in CO. This difference was largest in the obese group—on average by 23% ± 10%, translating to an overestimation of PVR by 34% ± 16% on average. Conclusions In individuals without severe obesity, intracardiac pressures are not different, but mixed venous oxygen saturations are lower. Obesity confounds estimations of CO and PVR by iFick methods, which could result in inappropriate hemodynamic classification. These data can inform best practices in hemodynamic assessment of populations with obesity.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".