ArticleCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2025
A cross-sectional comparison of invasive and noninvasive aortic pulse wave velocity measurement in patients with or at risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Article in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Increased aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV), a marker of arterial stiffness, is associated with poor prognosis in patients with or at risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Increasingly, advanced imaging using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to evaluate cardiac dysfunction, including coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD). To facilitate investigation linking CMD with HFpEF, we compared MRI-measured aPWV with traditional invasive or noninvasive measurements of aPWV. Methods: We studied 118 participants (90.7% women) with or at risk for HFpEF due to suspected CMD in a cross-sectional design at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between October 2025 and February 2022. aPWV was measured by: (I) MRI through-plane phase-contrast imaging at the ascending and distal descending aorta (MRI-aPWV) (n=78), (II) invasively via catheter pullback (cath-aPWV) (n=68), and (III) carotid-femoral applanation tonometry (cf-aPWV; SphygmoCor XCEL, Atcor Medical) (n=87). MRI-aPWV was compared to cath-aPWV and cf-aPWV using Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman plots. Results: Mean age was 58±11.8 years, and mean aPWV were 8.48±3.21 m/s (MRI-PWV), 7.51±2.79 m/s (cath-aPWV), and 8.68±1.83 m/s (cf-aPWV). MRI-aPWV strongly correlated with cf-aPWV with r=0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.83, P<0.001] with mean difference -0.18 and standard deviation (SD) 2.14. Comparison of MRI-aPWV to cath-aPWV showed a modest correlation of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.29-0.69, P<0.001) with a mean difference of -0.74 and SD 2.78. Conclusions: MRI measurement of aPWV shows good agreement with traditional invasive and noninvasive measurements in participants with or at risk for HFpEF. Reliable measurement of arterial stiffness combined with cardiac MRI measures of ventricular remodeling, fibrosis, scar and perfusion may offer pathophysiology insights and treatment targets for HFpEF.
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.