ArticleJHLT open2026
Absolute versus change in pulmonary vascular resistance in relation to European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society risk change in pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Article in JHLT open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), it remains unclear whether absolute haemodynamic values or treatment-induced changes are more relevant to subsequent changes in clinical status. As risk classifications are increasingly used to guide clinical management, we evaluated whether pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) at baseline, after 4 months of therapy, or treatment-induced change better explains risk change. Methods: Among 104 screened PAH patients, 69 were included retrospectively. The primary outcome was change in clinical status, defined as a shift in ESC/ERS 4-strata risk classification from baseline to 15 months. Haemodynamics were evaluated via right heart catheterization before and after 4 months of pharmacotherapy. Linear regression examined associations of baseline PVR, 4-month PVR, and ΔPVR with risk change. ROC analyses explored the ability of PVR (baseline, 4-month, and Δ), ΔRVEDP, and ΔCI to discriminate between risk stabilization and worsening. Results: Risk classification and PVR decreased significantly following treatment ( Conclusions: The change in PVR after 4 months of treatment outperformed baseline and 4-month PVR, but also other dynamic measures (ΔRVEDP and ΔCI), in explaining changes in 4-strata risk classification and identifying risk stabilization. These findings suggest that ΔPVR provides complementary insight when interpreting serial haemodynamic evaluations in the context of early treatment response in PAH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.