ArticleATS scholar2026
Right heart catheterization blended training program: quality improvement and educational outcomes.
Article in ATS scholar, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate measurement and reporting of pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (PAWP) and cardiac output (CO) are essential for diagnosing and managing pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Errors in these parameters can lead to misclassification and inappropriate treatment. Recent updates from the 2023 European Respiratory Society/European Society of Cardiology guidelines and the 2024 Seventh World Symposium on Pulmonary Hypertension emphasize the need for standardized right heart catheterization (RHC) practices.
objectiveTo identify knowledge gaps in RHC practices among interprofessional team members and implement a targeted blended learning program developed for pulmonary critical care and cardiology fellows, with a focus on accurate acquisition and interpretation of PAWP and CO.
methodsUsing the SQUIRE framework, we conducted a baseline survey assessing RHC practices and knowledge among pulmonary critical care and cardiology attending physicians and fellows and critical care nurses at an academic medical center. Respondents were actively involved in RHC procedures across the cardiac catheterization laboratory, medical intensive care unit, and cardiac care unit. Survey items with < 70% correct response were used to guide development of a 120-minute blended learning program incorporating lectures, video instruction, and hands-on-simulation. Pre- and posttraining assessments were conducted.
resultsOf 141 invited participants, 85 responded to the survey (60.3% response rate). Baseline data revealed knowledge gaps and therefore opportunities for learning in CO measurement methods and PAWP interpretation. Assessment postblended learning program demonstrated knowledge improvements in key areas including identification of indirect Fick (iFick) as the most common CO method, confirmation of zero-reference level by the proceduralist-nurse team, acquisition of PAWP, and obtaining at least 3 measurements of CO via thermodilution. However, correct identification of end-expiratory PAWP declined, highlighting the need for greater emphasis on this skill in future training sessions.
conclusionThis is the first reported interprofessional training initiative to target CO and PAWP measurement accuracy in RHC. This study identified key knowledge gaps and therefore opportunities for learning. Knowledge improvements measured after the educational intervention support the need for ongoing, structured, and interprofessional training to enhance procedural competency and interpretation of RHC hemodynamic data to optimize pulmonary hypertension and PAH care.
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.