ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2025
Imaging-based method to quantify left ventricular diastolic pressures.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT07416279 (Intracardiac Pressures From Microbubbles Instead of a Catheter), which is not on this 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.
Intracardiac Pressures From Microbubbles Instead of a Catheter: First in Human Study and Signal Calibration
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of diastolic function: machine learning improves classification of left ventricular filling pressure.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo establish an imaging-based method to quantify left ventricular (LV) diastolic pressures. METHODS AND
resultsIn 115 patients suspected of coronary artery disease, LV pressure was measured by micromanometers and images by echocardiography. LV filling pressure was measured as LV pre-atrial contraction pressure (pre-A PLV). Based on previous observations, we hypothesized that pre-A PLV approximates the sum of minimum PLV and maximum transmitral pressure difference. Parameters used for pressure estimates included LV volumes and strain, left atrial strain, mitral flow velocities, systolic arterial cuff pressure, and body mass index. Minimum PLV was estimated by predictors identified in a derivative cohort (n = 81). Mitral pressure difference was calculated by a simplified Navier-Stokes equation. Accuracy of estimates of minimum PLV, pre-A PLV, and end-diastolic PLV was investigated in a testing cohort (n = 19). Patient-specific LV diastolic pressure curves were constructed by adjusting a reference curve according to pressure estimates at key diastolic events. There was good agreement between estimated and measured pre-A PLV: bias 0.0, limits of agreement < 3.1 mmHg (±1.96 SD). Estimated minimum PLV and end-diastolic PLV also showed good agreement with measured pressures. Furthermore, there was good agreement between measured and estimated LV diastolic pressure curves, quantified as mean LV diastolic pressure: bias 0.2, limits of agreement < 3.2 mmHg.
conclusionThe proposed non-invasive method provided estimates of minimum PLV, pre-A PLV, and end-diastolic PLV, each reflecting different features of diastolic function. Additionally, it provided an estimate of the LV diastolic pressure curve. Validation in larger populations with different phenotypes is necessary to determine the validity of the method in clinical practice.
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.