ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Cardiac Output During Exercise: Thermodilution Versus Direct Fick.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate cardiac output (CO) measurements during exercise are essential for the diagnosis of exercise pulmonary hypertension (PH), exercise precapillary PH, and exercise postcapillary PH. The purpose of this study is to compare performance of thermodilution CO to gold-standard direct Fick CO (dfCO) at rest and exercise.
methodsA single-center prospective cohort study of patients undergoing invasive cardiopulmonary exercise test over a 3-year period. For the primary outcome, we predicted CO at each stage of exercise and recovery using generalized additive modeling. In secondary analysis, we assessed mean differences in CO across exercise stages and Bland-Altman analysis at rest and peak exercise. Finally, we assessed the impact in classification of exercise PH, exercise precapillary PH, and exercise postcapillary PH between the 2 CO methods.
resultsA total of 302 patients were included. In the primary analysis, the generalized additive model smooth term was significantly different between thermodilution and dfCO (
conclusionsThere are differences and wide limits of agreement between thermodilution and dfCO both at rest and during exercise. Sequential measurement of thermodilution during exercise with computing of mPAP/CO and PAWP/CO slopes, reduced the clinical impact of the differences in the diagnosis of exercise PH or exercise 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.