ArticleTexas Heart Institute journal2011
Central venous pressure and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure: fresh clinical perspectives from a new model of discordant and concordant heart failure.
Article in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging use of pulmonary artery and cardiac pressure sensing technology in the management of worsening heart failure events.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure: Revolutionizing Patient Management and Outcomes.US cardiology · 2024Review
- Decongestion Models and Metrics in Acute Heart Failure: ESCAPE Data in the Age of the Implantable Cardiac Pressure Monitor.Texas Heart Institute journal · 2022Article
- First-in-Human Experience of Mechanical Preload Control in Patients With HFpEF During Exercise.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2021Article
- Article
- Characterizing heart failure in the ventricular volume domain.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart-failure phenotypes include pulmonary and systemic venous congestion. Traditional heart-failure classification systems include the Forrester hemodynamic subsets, which use 2 indices: pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) and cardiac index. We hypothesized that changes in PCWP and central venous pressure (CVP), and in the phenotypes of heart failure, might be better evaluated by cardiovascular modeling. Therefore, we developed a lumped-parameter cardiovascular model and analyzed forms of heart failure in which the right and left ventricles failed disproportionately (discordant ventricular failure) versus equally (concordant failure). At least 10 modeling analyses were carried out to the equilibrium state. Acute discordant pump failure was characterized by a "passive" volume movement, with fluid accumulation and pressure elevation in the circuit upstream of the failed pump. In biventricular failure, less volume was mobilized. These findings negate the prevalent teaching that pulmonary congestion in left ventricular failure results primarily from the "backing up" of elevated left ventricular filling pressure. They also reveal a limitation of the Forrester classification: that PCWP and cardiac index are not independent indices of circulation. Herein, we propose a system for classifying heart-failure phenotypes on the basis of discordant or concordant heart failure. A surrogate marker, PCWP-CVP separation, in a simplified situation without complex valvular or pulmonary disease, shows that discordant left and right ventricular failures are characterized by differences of ≥ 4 and ≤ 0 mmHg, respectively. We validated the proposed model and classification system by using published data on patients with acute and chronic heart failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22199422PMC3233309What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.