ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2014
Comparison by magnetic resonance phase contrast imaging of pulse-wave velocity in patients with single ventricle who have reconstructed aortas versus those without.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-Invasive Assessment of Endothelial Dysfunction and Arterial Stiffness in Fontan Circulation.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
- Cross-Sectional Study of Arterial Stiffness in Adolescents with Down Syndrome.The Journal of pediatrics · 2019Article
- Aortic length measurements for pulse wave velocity calculation: manual 2D vs automated 3D centreline extraction.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017Article
- Variable Myocardial Response to Load Stresses in Infants with Single Left Ventricular Anatomy: Influence of Initial Physiology and Surgical Palliative Strategy.Pediatric cardiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Pulse-wave velocity (PWV), a measure of arterial stiffness, is a known independent risk factor for cardiovascular events. Patients with single ventricle who undergo aortic to pulmonary anastomosis (recon) have noncompliant patch material inserted into the neoaorta, possibly increasing vessel stiffness and afterload. The purpose of this study is to determine if PWV in patients with single ventricle differed between those who did and those who did not undergo aortic reconstruction (nonrecon). We retrospectively reviewed cardiac magnetic resonance anatomic, cine, and phase contrast evaluations in the ascending aorta and descending aorta (DAo) at the level of the diaphragm data from 126 patients with single ventricle (8.6 ± 8.0 years) from January 2012 to May 2013. Significance = p <0.05. Seventy-five patients underwent recon and 51 did not. PWV in recon was significantly higher than in nonrecon (3.9 ± 0.9 m/s vs 3.2 ± 1.0 m/s, p = 0.008); in recon, patients >13 years old had a higher PWV than those <7 years (4.5 ± 0.6 vs 3.5 ± 0.7 m/s, p = 0.004). Whether <7 or >13 years old, PWV of those with recon was higher than nonrecon DAo distensibility was similar between both groups. There was no difference in age, body surface area, or cardiac index between recon and nonrecon. No correlations between various hemodynamic and ventricular function parameters with PWV were noted. In conclusion, PWV in recon is higher than in nonrecon with similar DAo distensibility implicating the aortic reconstruction as a possible cause of increased afterload; older recon patients have stiffer aortas than younger ones, possibly imposing an additional cardiovascular risk in the future. Other biomaterials may potentially moderate PWV if clinical outcome is adversely affected.
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.