Observational studyScientific reports2021
Inaccuracy of a non-invasive estimation of pulmonary vascular resistance assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in heart failure patients.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Appreciation of Increased Pulmonary Vascular Resistance from the Maximum Desaturation in 2-Chair Test: An Appraisal.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- The association of right ventricular-pulmonary arterial coupling and pulmonary vascular resistance in adult patients with uncorrected atrial septal defect.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is a marker of pulmonary vascular remodeling. A non-invasive model assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed to estimate PVR. However, its accuracy has not yet been evaluated in patients with heart failure. We prospectively included 108 patients admitted with acute heart failure (AHF), in whom a right heart catheterization (RHC) and CMR were performed at the same day. PVR was estimated by CMR applying the model: PVR = 19.38 - [4.62 × Ln pulmonary artery average velocity (in cm/s)] - [0.08 × right ventricle ejection fraction (in %)], and by RHC using standard formulae. The median age of the cohort was 67 years (interquartile range 58-73), and 34% were females. The median of PVR assessed by RHC and CMR were 2.2 WU (1.5-4) and 5 WU (3.4-7), respectively. We found a weak correlation between invasive PVR and PVR assessed by CMR (Spearman r = 0.21, p = 0.02). The area under the ROC curve for PVR assessed by CMR to detect PVR ≥ 3 WU was 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.68. In patients with AHF, the non-invasive estimation of PVR using CMR shows poor accuracy, as well as a limited capacity to discriminate increased PVR values.
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.