ArticlePhysiological reports2020
Comprehensive assessment of coronary pulse wave velocity in anesthetized pigs.
Article in Physiological reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive assessment of coronary pulse wave velocity in anesthetized pigs.Physiological reports · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary stiffness represents a new paradigm for interventional cardiology and can be assessed by coronary pulse wave velocity (CoPWV). Assessing CoPWV is complex because of the coexistence of backward and forward waves.
objectivesEvaluate the feasibility, repeatability, and capacity of methods assessing CoPWV to detect predictable velocity changes.
methodsCoPWV was measured from distal and proximal pressure guidewires in the left anterior descending artery of 10 pigs under general anesthesia. Four methods were studied: the tangent intersection method applied to the forward (FW) and backward (BK) waves, as well as the dicrotic notch (DIC) and template matching (TM) methods. All were evaluated at baseline, during various arterial pressure and heart rate conditions, during simulated flow limitation (balloon inflation), and after increasing coronary stiffness (stent insertion).
resultsAll the methods were significantly different between them (p ≤ .05) showing a systematic trend toward higher CoPWV when compared to the FW method (.05 < p<.10). Results were found to be significantly correlated only between the BK and FW methods and between the DIC and TM methods (p ≤ .05). CoPWV increased with arterial pressure increase, this increase being significant for the DIC and TM methods and partly for the FW method (p ≤ .05). Conversely, heart rate had no systematic impact on CoPWV. The lowest variability was found for the DIC and TM methods (p ≤ .05). Only the BK and TM methods remained applicable during flow limitation; stent increased CoPWV when measured by the BK method only (p ≤ .05).
conclusionAlthough CoPWV can be measured by various methods, the BK and TM methods seem the most appropriate for clinical studies.
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.