Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure Patterns During Exercise Predict Exercise Capacity and Incident Heart Failure

Open access
Eisman, Aaron S., Shah, Ravi V., Dhakal, Bishnu P., Pappagianopoulos, Paul P., Wooster, Luke, Bailey, Cole, Cunningham, Thomas F., Hardin,, Kathryn M., Baggish, Aaron L., Ho, Jennifer E., Malhotra, Rajeev, Lewis, Gregory D.·2018·Circulation: Heart Failure

Abstract

Background: Single measurements of left ventricular filling pressure at rest lack sensitivity for identifying heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in patients with dyspnea on exertion. We hypothesized that exercise hemodynamic measurements (ie, changes in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [PCWP] indexed to cardiac output [CO]) may more sensitively differentiate HFpEF and non-HFpEF disease states, reflect aerobic capacity, and forecast heart failure outcomes in individuals with normal PCWP at rest. Methods and Results: We studied 175 patients referred for cardiopulmonary exercise testing with hemodynamic monitoring: controls (n=33), HFpEF with resting PCWP≥15 mm Hg (n=32), and patients with dyspnea on exertion with normal resting PCWP and left ventricular ejection fraction (DOE-nlrW; n=110). Across 1835 paired PCWP-CO measurements throughout exercise, we used regression techniques to define normative bounds of “PCWP/CO slope” in controls and tested the association of PCWP/CO slope with exercise capacity and composite cardiac outcomes (defined as cardiac death, incident resting PCWP elevation, or heart failure hospitalization) in the DOE-nlrW group. Relative to controls (PCWP/CO slope, 1.2±0.4 mm Hg/L/min), patients with HFpEF had a PCWP/CO slope of 3.4±1.9 mm Hg/L/min. We used a threshold (2 SD above the mean in controls) of 2 mm Hg/L/min to define abnormal. PCWP/CO slope >2 in DOE-nlrW patients was common (n=45/110) and was associated with reduced peak V o 2 ( P <0.001) and adverse cardiac outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index (hazard ratio, 3.47; P =0.03) at a median 5.3-year follow-up. Conclusions: Elevated PCWP/CO slope during exercise (>2 mm Hg/L/min) is common in DOE-nlrW and predicts exercise capacity and heart failure outcomes. These findings suggest that current definitions of HFpEF based on single measures during rest are insufficient and that assessment of exercise PCWP/CO slope may refine early HFpEF diagnosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circheartfailure.117.004750

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Eisman, A. S., Shah, R. V., Dhakal, B. P., Pappagianopoulos, P. P., Wooster, L., Bailey, C., Cunningham, T. F., Hardin, Baggish, A. L., Ho, J. E., Malhotra, R., & Lewis, G. D.
Venue
Circulation: Heart Failure
Published
2018-05
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
e004750-e004750
ISSN
  • 1941-3289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-3297
OpenAlex
W2801400479
Cited by
259
References
1
FWCI
19.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.