ArticlePloS one2020
Systolic and diastolic function in chronic spinal cord injury.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of C2 hemisection on respiratory and cardiovascular functions in rats.Neural regeneration research · 2023Article
- Beneficial Cardiac Structural and Functional Adaptations After Lumbosacral Spinal Cord Epidural Stimulation and Task-Specific Interventions: A Pilot Study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individuals with spinal cord injury develop cardiovascular disease more than age-matched, non-injured cohorts. However, progression of systolic and diastolic dysfunction into cardiovascular disease after spinal cord injury is not well described. We sought to investigate the relationship between systolic and diastolic function in chronic spinal cord injury to describe how biological sex, level, severity, and duration of injury correlate with structural changes in the left ventricle. Individuals with chronic spinal cord injury participated in this study (n = 70). Registered diagnostic cardiac sonographers used cardiac ultrasound to measure dimensions, mass, and systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle. We found no significant relationship to severity or duration of injury with left ventricle measurements, systolic function outcome, or diastolic function outcome. Moreover, nearly all outcomes measured were within the American Society of Echocardiography-defined healthy range. Similar to non-injured individuals, when indexed by body surface area (BSA) left ventricle mass [-14 (5) g/m2, p < .01], end diastolic volume [-6 (3) mL/m2, p < .05], and end systolic volume [-4 (1) mL/m2, p < .01] were significantly decreased in women compared with men. Likewise, diastolic function outcomes significantly worsened with age: E-wave velocity [-5 (2), p < .01], E/A ratio [-0.23 (0.08), p < .01], and e' velocity [lateral: -1.5 (0.3) cm/s, p < .001; septal: -0.9 (0.2), p < .001] decreased with age while A-wave velocity [5 (1) cm/s, p < .001] and isovolumic relaxation time [6 (3) ms, p < .05] increased with age. Women demonstrated significantly decreased cardiac size and volumes compared with men, but there was no biological relationship to dysfunction. Moreover, individuals were within the range of ASE-defined healthy values with no evidence of systolic or diastolic function and no meaningful relationship to level, severity, or duration of injury. Decreases to left ventricular dimensions and mass seen in spinal cord injury may result from adaptation rather than maladaptive myocardial remodeling, and increased incidence of cardiovascular disease may be related to modifiable risk factors.
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.