ArticlePulmonary circulation2025
The Impact of Cardiac Output Methods on the Classification of Pulmonary Hypertension.
Article in Pulmonary circulation, 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.
- Does the method matter? Direct fick vs thermodilution in the haemodynamic assessment of pulmonary hypertension.ESC heart failure · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac output is essential to calculate pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and classify pulmonary hypertension (PH). Recent evidence has shown a lower agreement between thermodilution (COTD) and direct Fick (CODF) methods than historically estimated. The influence of the cardiac output measurement method on the classification of PH is poorly explored. We aimed to estimate the risk of diagnostic error when using COTD instead of CODF. We used a previously published mathematical model to consecutive patients diagnosed with PH at three centers in Switzerland. This model allows an individual estimation of the risk of diagnostic error when using COTD instead of CODF and is based on limits of agreement (LoA) between COTD and CODF of 2 L/min (average estimation) and 2.7 L/min (worst case scenario estimation). One thousand one hundred and forty-two patients with PH were evaluated. The mean risk of diagnostic error using the model with LoA of 2 L/min was 6.0% in the overall population (
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.