ArticleTexas Heart Institute journal2022
Decongestion Models and Metrics in Acute Heart Failure: ESCAPE Data in the Age of the Implantable Cardiac Pressure Monitor.
Article in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The United States Food and Drug Administration restricts the use of implantable cardiac pressure monitors to patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure (HF). We investigated whether single-pressure monitoring could predict survival in HF patients as part of a model constructed using data from the ESCAPE (Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness) trial. We validated survival models in 204 patients, using all-cause 180-day mortality. Two levels of model complexity were tested: 1) a simplified 1-pressure model based on pulmonary artery mean pressure ([PAM]1P) (information obtainable from an implanted intracardiac monitor alone), and 2) a pair of 5-variable risk score models based on right atrial pressure (RAP) + pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ([RAP+PCWP]5V) and on RAP + PAM ([RAP+PAM]5V). The more complex models used 5 dichotomous variables: a congestion index above a certain threshold value, baseline systolic blood pressure of <100 mmHg, baseline blood urea nitrogen level of ≥ 34 mg/dL, need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or mechanical ventilation, and posttreatment NYHA class IV status. The congestion index was defined as posttreatment RAP+PCWP or posttreatment RAP+PAM, with congestion thresholds of 34 and 42 mmHg, respectively (median pulmonary catheter indwelling time, 1.9 d). The 5-variable models predicted survival with areas under the curve of 0.868 for the (RAP+PCWP)5V model and 0.827 for the (RAP+PAM)5V model, whereas the 1-pressure model predicted survival with an area under the curve of 0.718. We conclude that decongestion as determined by hemodynamic assessment predicts survival in HF patients and that it may be the final pathway for treatment benefit despite improvements in pharmacologic intervention since the ESCAPE trial.
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.