ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2021
Noninvasive prediction of pulmonary hemodynamics in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension by electrocardiogram-gated computed tomography.
Article in European journal of radiology open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a predictive model and nomogram using CTPA parameters for the identification of group 1 pulmonary arterial hypertension.iScience · 2026Article
- Leveraging Vascular Over Ventricular Ratios in Observational Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension and Acute Pulmonary Embolism Cohorts to Decode Clot Chronicity on Computed Tomography Angiography.Pulmonary circulation · 2025Article
- Machine learning assisted feature identification and prediction of hemodynamic endpoints using computed tomography in patients with CTEPH.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Quantification of pulmonary perfusion using LSIM-CT correlates with pulmonary hemodynamics in patients with CTEPD.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the study was to investigate the potential of electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) as a predictor of disease severity in patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH).
methodForty-five CTEPH patients with a mean age of 63.8 years±12.7 y (±standard deviation) who had undergone ECG-gated CTPA and right heart catheterization (RHC) were included in the study. Right ventricular to left ventricular volume ratio (RVV/LVV), diameter ratio on 4-chamber view (RVD4CH/LVD4CH), pulmonary trunk (PT) diameter, PT to aortic diameter ratio (PT/A), and septal angle were correlated to mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP). Moreover, RVV/LVV and RVD4CH/LVD4CH were adjusted to pulmonary diameter index (PADi) and PT/A index. Areas under the curve (AUC) for predicting mPAP above 40 mmHg, 35 mmHg, and 30 mmHg were calculated.
resultsRVD4CH/LVD4CH revealed the strongest correlation to mPAP before (r = 0.6507) and after (r = 0.7650; p < 0.0001) PT/A adjustment. The AUCs for predicting pH with mPAP over 40 mmHg and 30 mmHg were 0.9229 and 0.864, respectively. A cutoff value of 1.298 enabled prediction of pH with mPAP over 40 mmHg with a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive value of 80.00 %, 95.83 %, 88.46 %, and 94.12 %, respectively. Intra- and interobserver variability were excellent for all parameters.
conclusionCombining different and easily evaluable ECG-gated CTPA parameters enables excellent prediction of pulmonary hemodynamics in CTEPH patients. Ventricular diameter ratio on 4-chamber view adjusted by the PT/A ratio yielded the best correlation to mPAP.
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.