Key result
Non-invasive machine-learned algorithm detects elevated PCWP with ~82% sensitivity vs RHC.
Why the study?
Does a non-invasive machine-learned algorithm accurately detect elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in symptomatic patients?
Observational (n=255)
Blinded
Yes
Does a non-invasive machine-learned algorithm accurately detect elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure in symptomatic patients?
Effect estimate: Sensitivity 82.4%, Specificity 83.0%, ROC-AUC 0.912 (95% CI 75.2-89.6 (sensitivity); 76.9-89.1 (specificity))
p-value: p=0.0005 (sensitivity); <0.0001 (specificity)
A novel non-invasive machine-learning algorithm using thoracic electrodes and photoplethysmography can accurately detect elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, potentially reducing the need for right heart catheterization.
May aid non-invasive PCWP screening in symptomatic patients; leaves open whether it reduces catheterization or improves outcomes.
Background Elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) is an important marker of left ventricular filling pressure in heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases. Direct measurement requires right heart catheterization (RHC), while non invasive assessment remains limited. The objective of this study was to develop and validate a non-invasive, point-of-care, machine-learned algorithm for detecting clinically relevant PCWP elevation. Methods Orthogonal voltage gradient signals from thoracic electrodes and finger photoplethysmography signals were collected using a proprietary non-invasive acquisition device in prospective, multicenter studies across 19 U.S. sites. The algorithm was developed and tested in blinded, enrollment-gated validation using two prespecified populations: subjects with RHC-confirmed PCWP >18 mm Hg for sensitivity and symptomatic subjects with low likelihood of elevated PCWP for specificity, defined by guideline-based non-invasive criteria. Prespecified performance goals required lower confidence bounds exceeding 70% for sensitivity and 60% for specificity. Results In blinded validation, 108 subjects had RHC-confirmed PCWP >18 mm Hg and 147 symptomatic subjects met low-likelihood criteria. In the elevated-PCWP cohort, sensitivity was 82.4% (95% CI, 75.2%–89.6%), exceeding the prespecified lower confidence-bound goal of 70% (p=0.0005). In the low-likelihood cohort, specificity was 83.0% (95% CI, 76.9%–89.1%), exceeding the prespecified lower confidence-bound goal of 60% (p< 0.0001) The ROC-AUC was 0.912, with positive and negative likelihood ratios of 4.85 and 0.21, respectively. No significant performance differences were observed across prespecified subgroups, including age, sex, and race. Conclusions A non-invasive, point-of-care, machine-learned algorithm detected elevated PCWP with high sensitivity and specificity in a blinded, multicenter validation study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McLean et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Elevated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (n=255). Non-invasive, point-of-care, machine-learned algorithm vs. Right heart catheterization (RHC) or guideline-based non-invasive criteria was evaluated on Detection of clinically relevant PCWP elevation (>18 mm Hg) (Sensitivity 82.4%, Specificity 83.0%, ROC-AUC 0.912, 95% CI 75.2-89.6 (sensitivity); 76.9-89.1 (specificity), p=0.0005 (sensitivity); <0.0001 (specificity)). A non-invasive, machine-learned algorithm detected elevated PCWP with 82.4% sensitivity (95% CI 75.2-89.6) and 83.0% specificity (95% CI 76.9-89.1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: