108 PHEOCHROMOCYTOMA-INDUCED CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A MULTICENTRE ANALYSIS OF CLINICAL PROFILES, MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims There is still uncertainty on the management of patients with pheochromocytoma-induced CS (PICS), as only a few clinical cases have been reported. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical presentation, management, and outcome of patients with PICS. Methods We collected retrospectively 18 patients without previously known pheochromocytoma with histologically proven PICS admitted to 8 European hospitals. Results Among the 18 patients with a mean age of 50 years, 50% were men. The main clinical features at presentation were pulmonary congestion (83%) and cyclic fluctuation of hypertension crises and hypotension (72%). On echocardiography, mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 25% with an atypical-Takotsubo pattern (basal/midventricular) in 50%. Laboratory exams showed increased inflammatory markers, in particular, the mean white blood count was 21.9*109/L. Inotropes/vasopressors were started in all patients and a temporary mechanical circulatory support (t-MCS) was required in 11 (61.1%) patients. All patients underwent surgical removal of the pheochromocytoma but 4 (22.2%) on t-MCS. Echocardiogram (16/17 patients) revealed a mean LVEF of 55% at discharge. Only one patient required heart transplantation (5.5%), and all patients were alive at a median follow-up of 679 days. Conclusions In patients with PICS, characteristically, an atypical Takotsubo pattern was observed in almost half of the cases. Although the use of exogenous catecholamine can be perceived as deleterious, we showed a fairly good mid-term prognosis with rapid improvement of LVEF in most, even if adrenalectomy often occurred on t-MCS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".