ArticleCJC open2021
Wedge Pressure vs Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Pressure for Pulmonary Hypertension Classification and Prognostication in Severe Aortic Stenosis.
Article in CJC 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancy between pulmonary arterial wedge pressure and left ventricular end diastolic pressure in patients with interstitial lung disease.JHLT open · 2024Article
- Improved Interpretation of Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressures through Left Atrial Volumetry-A Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Article
- Systemic blood pressure in severe aortic stenosis: Haemodynamic correlates and long-term prognostic impact.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- Comparison of PCWP and LVEDP Measurements in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing TAVI-Same Same but Different?Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiation between precapillary and postcapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH) classically relies on mean pulmonary artery wedge pressure (mPAWP). The left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) is proposed as an equivalent alternative. However, mPAWP and LVEDP may differ substantially. We compared the impact of the choice of using the mPAWP vs the LVEDP on PH classification and mortality prediction in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing valve replacement.
methodsIn 335 patients with severe AS , both mPAWP and LVEDP were measured. A mean pulmonary artery pressure ≥ 25 mm Hg was used to define PH, and either mPAWP or LVEDP was used to differentiate between precapillary and postcapillary PH (≤ 15 vs > 15 mm Hg). Mortality after a median follow-up of 1484 days after aortic valve replacement was assessed.
resultsOverall, mPAWP was lower than LVEDP (16 ± 8 mm Hg vs 21 ± 8 mm Hg;
conclusionsUse of LVEDP rather than mPAWP results in a divergent PH classification in nearly every second patient with severe AS. These patients have higher mortality after aortic valve replacement. The mPAWP, but not the LVEDP, predicts mortality.
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.