ArticleThe Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation2025
Volume calibration with cardiac MRI versus hypertonic saline for right ventricular pressure-volume loops with exercise: Impact on ventricular function and ventricular-vascular coupling.
Article in The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRight ventricular (RV) pressure-volume (PV) loops require postacquisition volume calibration by cardiac MRI (CMR) or hypertonic saline (HS). We defined the impact of these 2 volume calibration methods on rest-to-exercise ventricular contractility (end-systolic elastance: Ees), arterial afterload (Ea), and coupling (Ees/Ea).
methodsIn a prospective study, 82 RV PV-loop datapoints (rest, exercise stages every 25 W, and recovery) and CMR were acquired in 19 participants.
resultsIn comparison to CMR, HS-based calibration overestimated RV end-systolic volume at rest, mean (SD) by +38 ml (48) and end-diastolic volume by +46 ml (68), resulting in underestimated right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) by -8%. However, Ees and Ea were similar at rest (r
conclusionsIn comparison to CMR (gold-standard), HS-based calibration underestimates RVEF at rest; however, it is a robust approach for measuring coupling and RV reserve.
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.