The resistance-compliance relationship at low pulmonary resistance: Integrating pulmonary wedge pressure into right ventricular load assessment.

Hannah Kempton, Nick Olsen, Katherine Kearney, Christopher S Hayward, David W M Muller, Audrey Adji

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hannah KemptonFaculty of Health and Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1670-0920

Nick OlsenFaculty of Health and Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Katherine KearneyFaculty of Health and Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Christopher S HaywardFaculty of Health and Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4036-1890

David W M MullerFaculty of Health and Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Audrey AdjiFaculty of Health and Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The inverse hyperbolic relationship between pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) and pulmonary arterial compliance (PAC) is a well-established marker of right ventricular (RV) afterload. Pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) is a known modifier of this relationship; however, its impact across pulmonary hypertension (PH) subgroups has not been well characterized. How does PCWP influence the resistance-compliance (RC) relationship in PH subgroups, and can it be integrated into PAC calculations? Data from routine right heart catheterizations were analyzed to evaluate the PVR-PAC relationship across PH subgroups, both with and without PCWP adjustment. The inverse PVR-PAC relationship was apparent in cohorts with low PVR (p < 0.001). In isolated post-capillary PH (Ipc-PH), this relationship was PCWP-dependent (unadjusted: p = 0.084; adjusted: p = 0.008). Incorporating PCWP significantly improved model fit (R

Indexed as

Hypertension, PulmonaryPulmonary Wedge PressureVascular ResistanceVentricular Function, RightCardiac CatheterizationFemaleHumansMalePulmonary Arterypulmonary arterial compliancepulmonary hypertensionpulmonary vascular resistance

Identifiers

PMID41795850

DOI10.14814/phy2.70811

PMCPMC12967464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.