ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
Assessment of aortic stiffness during atrial fibrillation: solutions and considerations.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methods to assess aortic stiffness are not validated during ongoing atrial fibrillation (AF) We aimed to determine whether aortic stiffness can be assessed reliably in patients during AF. Methods and results: Carotid-to-femoral and aortic pulse wave velocity (cf/aoPWV), central blood pressure (BP), and augmentation index (AIx) were assessed by a two-site applanation method and a one-site cuff-based oscillometric method in 40 patients with persistent AF and repeated after cardioversion to SR. Mean age was 63 ± 8 years, 73% male, 50% hypertensive. For the two-site method, cfPWV values were slightly higher in AF than in SR (9.3 ± 1.8 vs. 8.5 ± 1.6 m/s, Conclusions: Aortic stiffness can be assessed during AF. Both methods yielded higher central BP and lower AIx in AF, but similar results for PWV in AF and SR, also when adjusted for BP changes. The two-site method showed high variability necessitating repeated measurements. The one-site method showed lower device-calculated variability and needed fewer repeated measurements.
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.