ReviewHeart failure reviews2025
Advanced Markers for Hemodynamic Monitoring in Cardiogenic Shock and End-Stage Heart Failure: A Mini Review.
Review in Heart failure reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can clinicians quantify pulmonary congestion accurately using conventional modalities without remote dielectric sensing: ReDS quiz study.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Hemodynamic monitoring: basic principles in operation room and intensive care unit.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Review
- The red blood cell distribution width-to-albumin ratio and 28-day mortality in patients with severe cardiogenic shock: a retrospective cohort study based on MIMIC-IV with single-center external validation.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Right heart catheterization (RHC) provides critical hemodynamic insights by measuring atrial, ventricular, and pulmonary artery pressures, as well as cardiac output (CO). Although the use of RHC has decreased, its application has been linked to improved outcomes. Advanced hemodynamic markers such as cardiac power output (CPO), aortic pulsatility index (API), pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi), right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (RAP/PCWP) and right ventricular stroke work index (RVSWI) have been introduced to enhance risk stratification in cardiogenic shock (CS) and end-stage heart failure (HF) patients. CPO has emerged as a potent prognostic tool, with values below 0.6 Watts significantly associated with mortality. Similarly, API and PAPi have demonstrated strong predictive power for adverse outcomes, including death and the need for advanced HF therapies. RAP/PCWP ratio is shown to be a valuable a prognostic tool for RV dysfunction, mortality, and adverse outcomes. Despite mixed evidence on the prognostic utility of RVSWI, its physiologic relevance in assessing right ventricular function remains important. A novel clinical observation, involving patients with an RAP numerically greater than pulmonary artery saturation, was associated with a 71% 30-day mortality rate, underscoring the potential prognostic value of this finding. This review aims to summarize key advanced hemodynamic markers and their role in improving risk stratification and guiding treatment in CS and end-stage HF. The integration of these markers into clinical practice holds the potential to enhance personalized care and improve outcomes for patients with CS and advanced HF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39808367What 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.