Right heart catheterization in heart failure: indications, interpretation, and pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Right heart catheterization (RHC) plays a pivotal role across the spectrum of heart failure, from ambulatory patients to those in cardiogenic shock or under consideration for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy and heart transplantation. Hemodynamic data are critical for early recognition of clinical deterioration, prognostication, and guiding treatment decisions. This state-of-the-art review provides a practical guide to hemodynamic assessment, troubleshooting, and interpretation of hemodynamic variables assessed with RHC for clinicians treating patients with heart failure in the acute setting, including acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock as well as chronic heart failure and advanced disease states that may warrant LVAD or heart transplantation. A special focus is set on contextualizing hemodynamic variables within the clinical presentation to avoid diagnostic misclassification. In addition, opportunities for future research, including novel parameters as well as forward-thinking non-invasive technologies to inform hemodynamics, are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".