The role of exercise right heart catheterization to guide pulmonary hypertension therapy in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The spectrum of patients referred for suspected pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) includes a population with clinical features suggestive of pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease (PH‐LHD). Even after right heart catheterization (RHC) performed at rest, it can be a challenge to identify patients who will clearly benefit from PAH drug therapy. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the role of exercise RHC to influence decisions regarding prescription of PAH drug therapy in this population. A retrospective cohort study was conducted of older adults with risk factors for PH‐LHD and suspected PH referred for exercise RHC. One year follow‐up was conducted to record clinical outcomes, all changes in PAH drug therapy, and changes in patient‐reported quality of life. The final cohort included 61 patients, mean age of 69 ± 10; 44% and 34% had a history of coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation respectively. Exercise changed the proportional breakdown of hemodynamic diagnoses from 36% No PH, 44% PAH, and 20% PH‐LHD at rest to 15% No PH, 36% PAH, and 49% PH‐LHD. Although a significant proportion of patients were reclassified as PH‐LHD, there was an overall increase in the proportion of patients receiving PAH drug therapy, particularly for those with PAH confirmed by exercise RHC. A total of 11 PAH drug prescriptions were employed before exercise RHC increasing to 24 after ( p = 0.002). Patients receiving PAH therapy demonstrated significant improvement in self‐reported quality of life. Exercise RHC appeared to influence selection of PAH drug therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".