MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-invasive assessment of right ventricular function and pulmonary pressures in cardiogenic shock remains challenging: don't pack away the PAC just yet

2022· article· en· W4306251177 on OpenAlexaff
Yishay Szekely, Darshan H. Brahmbhatt, Francesco Scolari, Barbara S. Doumouras, Filio Billia

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockInternal medicineCardiologyPulmonary wedge pressurePulmonary arteryPulmonary artery catheterVentricleVascular resistanceDiastoleBlood pressureCardiac outputMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality despite advances in treatment. Patients with right ventricle (RV) dysfunction have been shown to have poorer outcomes. It is suggested that invasive monitoring through pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) placement can assist in guiding management to improve survival, though they are associated with adverse events. Purpose This study assessed the utility of non-invasive, echocardiographic assessment of RV performance and pulmonary artery pressures (PAP) in patients with CS. Methods Consecutive patients admitted to a North American quaternary cardiac intensive care unit who had PAC placement were recruited into this study. Invasive haemodynamic assessment was followed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) performed by a critical care cardiologist, blinded to the invasive measurements. TTE images were later reported by a second cardiologist, blinded to the invasive measurements and the patient. Correlations between RV and pulmonary invasive and non-invasive parameters were evaluated using Pearson's correlation. Results Overall, 96 assessments of 60 patients were compared. Patients were predominantly male (73%), aged 58±14 years and SCAI stage C (55%) and D (22%) at the time of assessment. Invasive measurements of right heart and pulmonary function was possible in all patients. Mean RAP was 8.5±4.7 mmHg, systolic PAP 37.5±9.9 mmHg, diastolic PAP 18.1±6.5 mmHg, mean PAP 25.1±7.2 mmHg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) 16.0±16.4 mmHg, pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) 157±99dyn s cm–5, RV stroke work index (RVSWI) 7.0±3.9 g min/m2 and PAP index (PAPi) 2.9±4.2. When compared to non-invasive echocardiographic parameters, there was little correlation with invasive values (Table). RVSWI moderately correlated with peak tricuspid regurgitation (TR) velocity, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and estimated systolic PAP; while peak TR velocity was mild-moderately correlated with PAP and PCWP. No single non-invasive parameter demonstrated strong prediction of invasive values. Conclusion Non-invasive assessment of right heart and pulmonary haemodynamic parameters is of limited validity when compared with invasive monitoring through PAC in patients with CS. PAC remains the most reliable method of assessing the RV haemodynamic profile in CS. Future studies should evaluate the clinical benefit of invasive haemodynamic monitoring in this population. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207