Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34774746›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cardiac failure2022

Improved Prognostic Performance of Cardiac Power Output With Right Atrial Pressure: A Subanalysis of the ESCAPE Trial.

Mark N Belkin, Francis J Alenghat, Stephanie A Besser, Sean P Pinney, Jonathan Grinstein

Open access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cardiac failure, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Hemodynamic management of cardiogenic shock in the intensive care unit.The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark N BelkinFrom the University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Chicago, Illinois.
Francis J AlenghatFrom the University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Chicago, Illinois.
Stephanie A BesserFrom the University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Chicago, Illinois.
Sean P PinneyFrom the University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Chicago, Illinois.
Jonathan GrinsteinFrom the University of Chicago Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: jgrinstein@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.
University of Chicago · US

Funding

MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARDIAC SCIENCEST32HL007381 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI JEANNE M DECARA, Yoav Gilad · 1985 to 2026
$12.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007381
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe initial derivation of cardiac power output (CPO) included the difference between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and right atrial pressure (RAP) in the numerator, before multiplying by cardiac output (CO). We hypothesized that the inclusion of RAP (CPO-RAP) would enhance the prognostic performance of this parameter in those with an elevated RAP. METHODS AND

resultsWe obtained patient-level data from the ESCAPE trial via the Biolincc database. Participants with full final hemodynamics were included in the analysis. The CPO-RAP was calculated as [(MAP - RAP) × CO)]/451 Watts (W), and the CPO was calculated as (MAP × CO)/451. The primary outcome was freedom from left ventricular assist device, heart transplant, or death at 6 months. Included participants (n = 157) were a median of 58 years of age (interquartile range [IQR] 49-67 years), 27% were women, and 59% had ischemic cardiomyopathy. The median CPO was 0.70 W (IQR 0.50-0.90 W), and the median CPO-RAP was 0.62 W (IQR 0.47-0.79 W). In univariable logistic regressions, the CPO was not associated with the primary outcome (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.08-1.29, P = .11), but the CPO-RAP was (odds ratio 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.54, P < .01). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, there were no significant difference in outcomes with CPO (76% vs 64%, P = .08), but for CPO-RAP, there were significant differences in outcomes (81% vs 63%, P = .01). When further delineating CPO-RAP by RAP above or below the median, there was no significant difference in the outcome for participants with a RAP 8 or less (94% vs 79%, P = .07), but a significant difference in participants with a RAP of more than 8 mm Hg (66% vs 45%, P < .05).

conclusionsThe inclusion of RAP resulted in a significant association with the primary outcome; CPO alone was not.

Indexed as

Heart-Assist DevicesHeart FailureAgedAtrial PressureCardiac OutputFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisacute decompensated heart failurecardiac outputHemodynamics

Identifiers

PMID34774746
PMCPMC9085968
OpenAlexW3213879414

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.