MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7085145492 · doi:10.20935/acadmed7855

Comparison of catheter and CT biventricular pressure-volume analysis during pressure overload

2025· article· en· W7085145492 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademia Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentriclePreloadStroke volumeCatheterCardiac function curveCardiac outputInferior vena cavaVentricular pressureAortic pressureVolume overload

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Admittance catheter-derived pressure–volume (PV) analysis offers the ability to assess dynamic changes in ventricular performance. The present study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of biventricular PV analysis by comparing admittance catheter-derived measurements of left (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volumes with data obtained from simultaneous contrast-enhanced cardiac multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) before, during, and after transient pressure overload (TPO) in swine. Load-independent parameters of LV and RV systolic function were also assessed to determine whether each ventricle exhibits a similar susceptibility to mechanical stretch-induced myocardial stunning. Methods: Closed-chest propofol-anesthetized swine (n = 5) were instrumented with a Swan-Ganz catheter and admittance catheters in the LV and RV for continuous biventricular PV analysis (ADV500; Transonic Scisense, Inc., London, ON, Canada). Cardiac MDCT with iodinated contrast (1 ml/kg at 4 ml/s) was performed before, during, and 30 min after TPO elicited by a 1 h intravenous infusion of phenylephrine (PE; 300 µg/min). Right and left ventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and stroke volume were calculated simultaneously with each modality. Load-independent systolic function was derived from biventricular PV loops collected during inferior vena cava occlusion at baseline and 30 min after PE. Results: PE elicited a significant rise in LV pressure and RV pressure that normalized 30 min after the end of the infusion period. Biventricular PV analysis demonstrated a significant increase in LV and RV end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume during PE that normalized in the RV, but not LV, 30 min after cessation of PE. These changes were confirmed by contrast-enhanced cardiac MDCT-derived measurement of ventricular volumes, with no significant differences between PV and MDCT at any timepoint. Persistent LV dilatation after PE was accompanied by a reduction in load-dependent (dP/dtmax) and load-independent (ESPVR and PRSW) parameters of LV systolic function, reflecting stretch-induced stunning following a ~6-fold rise in LV end-diastolic pressure during PE. This was not observed in the RV, as load-dependent and load-independent parameters of RV systolic function were preserved following PE-induced TPO. Conclusions: Biventricular PV analysis is feasible in swine and provides accurate continuous measurement of ventricular volumes compared with intermittent contrast-enhanced cardiac MDCT. Employing this approach during transient PE infusion demonstrated persistent chamber dilatation and systolic dysfunction in the LV, but not RV, consistent with stretch-induced stunning caused by an acute elevation in preload. The absence of stretch-induced stunning in the RV may be linked to inherent differences in compliance relative to the LV, as well as a diminished pressor response to PE in the pulmonary vs. systemic circulation. The data included in this manuscript were originally shared with the scientific community via two peer-reviewed abstracts referenced within.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademia Medicine→Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies→French-language works237,207→