A systematic review and physiology of pulmonary artery pulsatility index in left ventricular assist device therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Right heart failure (RHF) is a major complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) has been evaluated as a haemodynamic marker for RHF, but PAPi is dependent on pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). We conducted a systematic review to assess the relationship between PAPi and RHF and death in patients undergoing LVAD implantation and examined the relationship between PAPi cut-off and PVR. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and manually screened retrieved references to identify all clinical studies reporting PAPi in adult patients with a durable LVAD. Eligibility criteria were prespecified and 2 reviewers independently screened and extracted data; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess quality of non-randomized studies. This study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259009). RESULTS: From 283 unique records, we identified 16 studies reporting haemodynamic assessment in 20 634 adult patients with an implanted durable LVAD. Only 2 studies reported on mortality and in both, a lower PAPi was significantly associated with death. Fifteen studies reported RHF data and, in 10 studies, a lower PAPi was significantly associated with RHF. Six studies reported on PAPi cut-offs ranging from 0.88 to 3.3; and the cut-offs were directly related to PVR (r = 0.6613, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Lower PAPi was associated with RHF and death following LVAD implantation, but a single PAPi cut-off cannot be defined, as it is dependent on PVR.
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 | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".