Association Between Pressure-Adjusted Heart Rate and In-Hospital Mortality in Cardiogenic Shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), higher right atrial pressure (RAP) and lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) are associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Pressure-adjusted heart rate (PAHR), defined as heart rate × RAP/MAP, integrates these parameters. The prognostic significance of PAHR has not been assessed in patients with CS. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to assess if PAHR values are associated with risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with CS. METHODS: CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multinational registry of cardiac intensive care units coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. Among CS admissions (2018-2023) undergoing invasive hemodynamic assessment within 24 hours of cardiac intensive care unit admission, we assessed the relationship of PAHR with in-hospital mortality. Patients with concurrent mechanical circulatory support were excluded in the primary analysis. ORs were adjusted for age, sex, vasoactive-inotropic score, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) stage, and preceding cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Among the 1411 CS admissions in the analysis (18% with acute myocardial infarction), 75% were receiving vasoactive support at the time of assessment. Median heart rate was 92 beats/min, RAP 15 mm Hg, MAP 75 mm Hg, and PAHR 17. There was a stepwise gradient of higher in-hospital mortality with higher presenting PAHR values. In adjusted models, a higher PAHR was incrementally associated with higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR per 10 units: 1.35 [95% CI: 1.15-1.58]), and PAHR had stronger prognostic associations with mortality than its individual hemodynamic components. CONCLUSIONS: PAHR, a simple hemodynamic index calculated from vital signs and central venous pressure, is strongly associated with in-hospital mortality in CS.
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 | 0.000 | 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".