Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31466390›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2019

Right Heart Catheterization-Background, Physiological Basics, and Clinical Implications.

Grzegorz M Kubiak, Agnieszka Ciarka, Monika Biniecka, Piotr Ceranowicz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Grzegorz M KubiakDepartment of Cardiac, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery and Transplantology, Silesian Centre for Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland.
Agnieszka CiarkaDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven, University of Leuven, Herestraat 49, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
Monika BinieckaKardioMed Silesia, M. Curie-Skłodowskiej 10C, 41-800 Zabrze, Poland.
Piotr CeranowiczDepartment of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-008 Kraków, Poland. piotr.ceranowicz@uj.edu.pl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The idea of right heart catheterization (RHC) grew in the milieu of modern thinking about the cardiovascular system, influenced by the experiments of William Harvey, which were inspired by the treatises of Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Gallen, who made significant contributions to the subject. RHC was first discovered in the eighteenth century by William Hale and was subsequently systematically improved by outstanding experiments in the field of physiology, led by Cournand and Dickinson Richards, which finally resulted in the implementation of pulmonary artery catheters (PAC) into clinical practice by Jeremy Swan and William Ganz in the early 1970s. Despite its premature euphoric reception, some further analysis seemed not to share the early enthusiasm as far as the safety and effectiveness issues were concerned. Nonetheless, RHC kept its significant role in the diagnosis, prognostic evaluation, and decision-making of pulmonary hypertension and heart failure patients. Its role in the treatment of end-stage heart failure seems not to be fully understood, although it is promising. PAC-guided optimization of the treatment of patients with ventricular assist devices and its beneficial introduction into clinical practice remains a challenge for the near future.

Indexed as

clinical implicationsdiagnosisheart failureprognostic evaluationpulmonary hypertensionright heart catheterization

Identifiers

PMID31466390
PMCPMC6780851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.