Trial reportJournal of cardiac failure2022
Improved Prognostic Performance of Cardiac Power Output With Right Atrial Pressure: A Subanalysis of the ESCAPE Trial.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated Hemodynamic Measures of Cardiac Function and Association With Clinical Outcomes.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Article
- Invasive Hemodynamic Monitoring in Acute Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Advanced Markers for Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cardiogenic Shock and End-Stage Heart Failure: A Mini Review.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Cardiac power output associated with hospitalization and mortality in coronary artery disease patients at stage B heart failure.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
- Dynamic assessment of left ventricular coupling and myocardial reserve in patients with cardiogenic shock.European heart journal open · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Review
- Improved Prognostic Performance of Right Atrial Pressure-Corrected Cardiac Power Output in Pulmonary Hypertension and Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2024Article
- Prognostic value of right atrial pressure-corrected cardiac power index in cardiogenic shock.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.