ArticlePhysiological reports2025
Impact of patient positioning on hemodynamic assessment: A comparison of supine and upright right heart catheterization.
Article in Physiological reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical research on pulmonary hypertension from a 2025 perspective: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Impact of patient positioning on hemodynamic assessment: A comparison of supine and upright right heart catheterization.Physiological reports · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The impact of patient positioning on PCWP measurement and PH classification is underexplored. This study evaluates the differences in hemodynamic assessments between supine and upright RHC. We conducted a retrospective analysis of a single-center iCPET registry, comparing sequential hemodynamic measurements in the supine and upright positions in 1307 patients. Compared to upright RHC, supine RHC showed consistently higher mean PAP (21 ± 8.5 mmHg vs. 16 ± 8 mmHg) and PCWP (12 ± 4.7 mmHg vs. 6.4 ± 4.9 mmHg). The differences in mPAP and PCWP measurements between supine and upright RHC persisted regardless of sex, age, BMI, or severity of chronic lung disease. Supine RHC diagnosed significantly more cases of HFpEF (21.8% vs. 5.7%) and isolated postcapillary PH (10.9% vs. 1.8%), primarily due to the overestimation of PCWP. Upright RHC had a higher specificity for detecting elevated PCWP (>15 mmHg) in patients with PCWP/CO>2 (98.27% vs. 84.61%) and demonstrated a stronger association with PCWP/CO>2 (OR 9.11, 95% CI 5-16) compared to supine RHC (p = 0.058). PCWP measured in the supine position is higher compared to upright assessment and probably results in increased diagnosis of postcapillary PH.
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.