MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Echocardiographic assessment alone is inadequate for determining elevated left sided filling pressures in patients with cardiogenic shock

2022· article· en· W4306254608 on OpenAlexaff
Darshan H. Brahmbhatt, Francesco Scolari, Barbara S. Doumouras, Filio Billia, Yishay Szekely

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockPulmonary wedge pressureCardiologyInternal medicinePulmonary artery catheterDoppler echocardiographyCoronary care unitMyocardial infarctionPulmonary arteryHemodynamicsBlood pressureCardiac outputDiastole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Left atrial (LA) filling pressure assessment is of paramount importance in tailoring treatments for patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). ESC guidelines advocate for the use of mitral inflow Doppler and mitral annulus tissue Doppler measurements to predict elevated left atrial pressure in clinical practice. Echocardiographic measurement of LA pressures could reduce the need for invasive monitoring in CS patients, but its utility remains unproven in this population. Purpose We assessed the validity of mitral inflow velocity and mitral annulus velocity indices to determine LA pressures, correlating them with invasive measurement of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) in CS patients admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). Methods We prospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent pulmonary artery catheter insertion in the CICU, measuring their haemodynamic parameters, including PCWP. This was immediately followed by a transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) performed by a critical care cardiologist, blinded to the invasive measurements. The early (E) and late (A) mitral inflow velocities were measured using mitral inflow Doppler and septal and lateral mitral annulus velocities (e') were measured using tissue Doppler, all in the apical 4-chamber view. TTE images were later reported by a second cardiologist, blinded to the invasive measurements and the patient. Correlations between E; E/A ratio; E/e' ratio and PCWP were evaluated using Pearson's correlation. Results Sixty patients were recruited into the study, aged 58±14 years, 27% female, with 96 assessments undertaken. The majority (55%) of patients were SCAI stage C, with 14% having had a cardiac arrest prior to CICU admission and 27% required mechanical ventilation at the time of assessment. Mean PCWP was 16.0±6.5 mmHg. Full mitral valve Doppler and tissue Doppler profiles were measured in 67 (70%) assessments, limited due to E/A fusion, atrial fibrillation and limited acoustic windows. There was only weak correlation between PCWP and E/A ratio (R=0.33, p=0.01), with no correlation between PCWP and the other measured values (Table 1), including E/e'. The AUC for identifying patients with elevated PCWP (≥15 mmHg) using E/A ratio was 0.67 (p=0.02), although there was no suitable value to use as a cut off with adequate sensitivity and specificity (Figure 1). Conclusion Echocardiographic non-invasive assessment of left sided cardiac filling pressures is technically challenging in patients with CS. Even when possible, there is weak correlation between echocardiographic and invasive measurements, suggesting limited value in this technique. Alternative non-invasive modalities, such as lung ultrasound, should be investigated in this population to assist clinical assessment. 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207