ReviewJRSM cardiovascular disease
The prognostic utility of the pulmonary artery pulsatility and aortic pulsatility index in patients with heart failure: A systematic review.
Review in JRSM cardiovascular disease. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart failure (HF) continues to pose a major burden worldwide, and risk stratification is important to guide management. Hemodynamic indices such as the pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPI) and aortic pulsatility index (API) have gained attention as potential prognostic tools, but their role is still not well established. We conducted a systematic review to assess the prognostic role of PAPI and API in HF patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies assessing PAPI and API in adults (≥18 years) with HF. We included cohort studies and randomized trials reporting outcomes such as mortality, hospitalization, left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation. Of 601 studies identified, 12 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 3681 patients. Across different HF populations, lower PAPI values were consistently associated with worse outcomes, with reported cutoffs ranging from ≤1.9 in cardiogenic shock to around ≤2.8-2.95 in broader HF populations, and up to ≤3.65 in advanced HF. Aortic pulsatility index showed a similar pattern, but with more consistent performance: values <1.45 were linked to mortality or rapid progression to advanced therapies, while values >2.9 were associated with better event-free survival. In studies that evaluated both indices, API generally showed stronger prognostic value. Overall, PAPI and API provide clinically useful prognostic information, particularly in advanced HF patients undergoing invasive hemodynamic assessment, though further large-scale prospective studies are needed to better define their role.
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.