ArticleCardiovascular ultrasound2008
Comparison of the effect of pressure loading on left ventricular size, systolic and diastolic function in canines with left ventricular dysfunction with preserved and reduced ejection fraction.
Article in Cardiovascular ultrasound, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The correlation between Fischer's ratio and the risk of cardiac dysfunction in heart failure patients.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Characterizing heart failure in the ventricular volume domain.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2015Review
- Repeated bedside echocardiography in children with respiratory failure.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 2011Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecompensated heart failure may present with severe hypertension in patients with preserved (PreEF) or reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (RedEF) and is clinically indistinguishable. Previously, we demonstrated that arterial pressure elevation increases LV filling pressures in a canine model of chronic LV dysfunction with PreEF or RedEF. It is not clear whether any differences in hemodynamics, LV volume or performance, or diastolic function can be demonstrated between canines with PreEF or RedEF in response to arterial pressure elevation. We hypothesized that the LV systolic, diastolic, and hemodynamic response to pressure loading would be similar in RedEF or PreEF.
methodsWe studied 25 dogs with chronic LV dysfunction due to coronary microsphere embolization with RedEF (35 +/- 4%) and 20 dogs with PreEF (50 +/- 3%). Arterial pressure was increased with methoxamine infusion and hemodynamics and echo-Doppler parameters of LV size, function, transaortic and transmitral pulsed Doppler prior to and with methoxamine infusion was obtained.
resultsThough LV filling pressures were similar at baseline, LV size was larger (p < 0.01) and ejection fraction lower in dogs with RedEF (p < 0.001). With methoxamine, there were similar increases in LV size, LV pressures, and index of myocardial performance with the ejection fraction reduced similarly. Diastolic parameters demonstrated similar tau increases, E/A reduction, and diastolic filling shortening in RedEF and PreEF dogs. A similar extent of isovolumic contraction and relaxation times and index of myocardial performance prolongation occurred with pressure loading.
conclusionPressure loading in a canine model of LV dysfunction with PreEF and RedEF resulted in similar degrees of LV dilatation, increased filling pressures, and increased index of myocardial performance.
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.