A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Impact on Pulmonary Hypertension Hemodynamic Classification Based on the Methodology Used to Measure Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressure and Cardiac Output. | LitMetric

Guidelines recommend using end-expiration pulmonary pressure measurements to determine the hemodynamic subgroups in pulmonary hypertension. Pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) determinations averaged across the respiratory cycle (PAWPav) instead of PAWP at end-expiration (PAWPee) and cardiac output (CO) measured by Fick (CO) instead of thermodilution (CO) may affect the hemodynamic classification of pulmonary hypertension. To assess the impact on the pulmonary hypertension hemodynamic classification of the use of PAWPee versus PAWPav as well as CO versus CO. This was a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients ( = 151) who underwent right heart catheterization with CO, CO, PAWPee, and PAWPav. A secondary cohort consisted of consecutive patients ( = 71) who had mean pulmonary artery pressure at end-expiration (mPAPee) and mPAP averaged across the respiratory cycle (mPAPav) measured, as well as PAWPee and PAWPav. The PAWPee and PAWPav were 16.8 ± 6.4 and 15.1 ± 6.8 mm Hg, respectively, with a mean difference of 1.7 ± 2.1 mm Hg. The CO and CO determinations were 5.0 ± 2.4 and 5.3 ± 2.5 L/min, respectively, with a mean difference of -0.4 ± 1.3 L/min. The hemodynamic group distribution was significantly different when using PAWPee versus PAWPav, when using either CO or CO ( < 0.001 for both comparisons), and these results were consistent in our secondary cohort. The pulmonary hypertension hemodynamic group distribution was not significantly different between CO and CO when using either PAWPee or PAWPav. The methodology used to measure PAWP, either at end-expiration or averaged across the respiratory cycle, significantly impacts the hemodynamic classification of pulmonary hypertension.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202303-216OCDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pulmonary hypertension
16
hemodynamic classification
12
pulmonary artery
12
pawpee pawpav
12
impact pulmonary
8
hypertension hemodynamic
8
artery wedge
8
wedge pressure
8
cardiac output
8
averaged respiratory
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!