ArticleWellcome open research2023
Aortic flow is abnormal in HFpEF.
Article in Wellcome open research, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diastolic dysfunction is linked to the initiation and progression of aortic stenosis: a hypothesis.European heart journal · 2026Review
- Clinical 4D flow MRI assessment in aortopathy-what the clinician needs to know.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- Clinical relevance of aortic conduit and reservoir function.Open heart · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: Turbulent aortic flow makes the cardiovascular system less effective. It remains unknown if patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have disturbed aortic flow. This study sought to investigate advanced markers of aortic flow disturbances in HFpEF. Methods: This case-controlled observational study used four-dimensional flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived, two-dimensional phase-contrast reformatted plane data at an orthogonal plane just above the sino-tubular junction. We recruited 10 young healthy controls (HCs), 10 old HCs and 23 patients with HFpEF. We analysed average systolic aortic flow displacement (FDsavg), systolic flow reversal ratio (sFRR) and pulse wave velocity (PWV). In a sub-group analysis, we compared old HCs versus age-gender-matched HFpEF (N=10). Results: Differences were significant in mean age (P<0.001) among young HCs (22.9±3.5 years), old HCs (60.5±10.2 years) and HFpEF patients (73.7±9.7 years). FDsavg, sFRR and PWV varied significantly (P<0.001) in young HCs (8±4%, 2±2%, 4±2m/s), old HCs (16±5%, 7±6%, 11±8m/s), and HFpEF patients (23±10%, 11±10%, 8±3). No significant PWV differences existed between old HCs and HFpEF.HFpEF had significantly higher FDsavg versus old HCs (23±10% vs 16±5%, P<0.001). A FDsavg > 17.7% achieved 74% sensitivity, 70% specificity for differentiating them. sFRR was notably higher in HFpEF (11±10% vs 7±6%, P<0.001). A sFRR > 7.3% yielded 78% sensitivity, 70% specificity in differentiating these groups. In sub-group analysis, FDsavg remained distinctly elevated in HFpEF (22.4±9.7% vs 16±4.9%, P=0.029). FDsavg of >16% showed 100% sensitivity and 70% specificity (P=0.01). Similarly, sFRR remained significantly higher in HFpEF (11.3±9.5% vs 6.6±6.4%, P=0.007). A sFRR of >7.2% showed 100% sensitivity and 60% specificity (P<0.001). Conclusion: Aortic flow haemodynamics namely FDsavg and sFRR are significantly affected in ageing and HFpEF patients.
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.