ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Acute effect of static exercise in patients with aortic regurgitation assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: role of left ventricular remodelling.
Article in European radiology, 2017. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn patients with aortic regurgitation (AR), the effect of static exercise (SE) on global ventricular function and AR severity has not been previously studied.
methodsResting and SE cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) were prospectively performed in 23 asymptomatic patients with AR.
resultsDuring SE, we observed a decrease in regurgitant volume in both end-diastolic (EDV) and end-systolic (ESV) volume in both ventricles, as well as a slight decrease in LV ejection fraction (EF). Interestingly, responses varied depending on the degree of LV remodelling. Among patients with a greater degree of LV remodelling, we observed a decrease in LVEF (56 ± 4 % at rest vs 48 ± 7 % during SE, p = 0.001) as a result of a lower decrease in LVESV (with respect to LVEDV. Among patients with a lower degree of LV remodelling, LVEF remained unchanged. RVEF remained unchanged in both groups.
conclusionsIn patients with AR, SE provoked a reduction in preload, LV stroke volume, and regurgitant volume. In those patients with higher LV remodelling, we observed a decrease in LVEF, suggesting a lower LV contractile reserve. KEY POINTS: • In patients with aortic regurgitation, static exercise reduced preload volume. • In patients with aortic regurgitation, static exercise reduced stroke volume. • In patients with aortic regurgitation, static exercise reduced regurgitant volume. • In patients with greater remodelling, static exercise unmasked a lower contractile reserve. • Effect of static exercise on aortic regurgitation was assessed by cardiac MR.
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.