Observational studyClinical cardiology2025
Acoustic Cardiography (ACG) for Left Ventricular Ejection Time (LVET) Monitoring in Preeclampsia Risk Prediction.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Preliminary results of a single, easy-to-use device for multimodal detection of intervals associated with heart failure decompensation.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Acoustic Cardiography (ACG) for Left Ventricular Ejection Time (LVET) Monitoring in Preeclampsia Risk Prediction.Clinical cardiology · 2025Observational
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreeclampsia (PE), a leading cause of maternal morbidity, lacks reliable early biomarkers. This study evaluates acoustic cardiography (ACG) for noninvasive left ventricular ejection time (LVET) monitoring and its predictive value in PE.
methodsIn an observational case-control study, 59 pregnant women (28 controls, 31 PE cases) underwent synchronized ECG-phonocardiogram (PCG) monitoring using AI-driven devices. LVET, Q2S2Max, and hemodynamic parameters were analyzed. HYPOTHESIS: ACG predict PE risk via LVET monitoring.
resultsSignificantly prolonged LVET in the PE group (320.28 ± 26.79 ms vs. 301.32 ± 35.42 ms, p = 0.026), correlating with increased cardiac afterload. ROC analysis revealed moderate diagnostic efficacy for LVET alone (AUC = 0.658, sensitivity 72.4%, specificity 57.1%). Combining LVET with hypertension history enhanced performance (AUC = 0.776, specificity 77.8%), reducing false positives. Elevated Q2S2Max in PE (426.10 ± 29.46 vs. 403.96 ± 33.28, p = 0.010) indicated vascular stiffness, suggesting early vascular-cardiac coupling dysfunction.
conclusionsACG-derived parameters, integrated with clinical risk factors, demonstrated cost-effective, dynamic monitoring potential for early PE detection, particularly in resource-limited settings. While limited by sample size and single-center design, this study highlights ACG as a promising tool for cardiovascular risk stratification in pregnancy, warranting further validation in larger cohorts.
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.