Observational studyESC heart failure2019
Association between lung ultrasound findings and invasive exercise haemodynamics in patients with undifferentiated dyspnoea.
Observational study in ESC heart failure, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exercise haemodynamics in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2022Pooled it
- Recommendations for Lung Ultrasound in Internal Medicine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Guideline
- Exercise Stress Echocardiography in the Diagnostic Evaluation of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Review
- Prognostic Value of Lung Ultrasound in Aortic Stenosis.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- A practical guide to the lung ultrasound for the assessment of congestive heart failure.Journal of echocardiography · 2021Review
- Association between lung ultrasound findings and invasive exercise haemodynamics in patients with undifferentiated dyspnoea.ESC heart failure · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsDyspnoea is common in heart failure (HF) but non-specific. Lung ultrasound (LUS) could represent a non-invasive tool to detect subclinical pulmonary congestion in patients with undifferentiated dyspnoea. METHODS AND
resultsWe assessed the feasibility of an abbreviated LUS protocol (eight and two zones) in a prospective pilot study of 25 ambulatory patients with undifferentiated dyspnoea undergoing clinically indicated invasive cardiopulmonary exercise testing (iCPET) at rest (LUS 1) and after peak exercise (LUS 2). We also related LUS findings (B-lines) to invasive haemodynamics stratified by supine pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) (Congestion, >15 mmHg; Control, ≤15 mmHg). All enrolled patients (median age 68, 60% women, 32% prior HF, median ejection fraction 59%) had interpretable LUS 1 images in eight zones, and 20 (80%) had adequate LUS 2 images. LUS images were adequate in two posterior zones in 24 patients (96%) for LUS 1 and 18 (72%) for LUS 2. Although B-line number was numerically higher in the Congestion group at rest and after peak exercise, this difference did not reach statistical significance. In the entire cohort, there was an association between B-lines and rest systolic pulmonary artery pressure (r = 0.46, P = 0.02) and PCWP (r = 0.54, P = 0.005). There was an inverse relationship between B-lines and peak VO
conclusionsAmong ambulatory patients with undifferentiated dyspnoea, an abbreviated LUS protocol before and after iCPET is feasible in the majority of patients. B-line number at rest was associated with invasively measured markers of haemodynamic congestion and was inversely related with peak VO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.