ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Left ventricular-arterial coupling parameters predict incident cardiovascular events and mortality in UK Biobank.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 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.
- Presentation of preload and afterload to isolated heart preparations.The Journal of physiology · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVentricular-arterial coupling (VAC) is fundamental to cardiovascular efficiency, but its value for predicting cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of three novel non-invasive VAC parameters-the ratio of arterial stiffness index to global longitudinal strain (ASI/GLS), estimated pulse wave velocity to GLS (ePWV/GLS), and left ventricular end-systolic volume to stroke volume (LVESV/LVSV)-for incident atrial fibrillation (AF), stroke, heart failure (HF), coronary heart disease (CHD), all-cause and CVD mortality.
methodsWe analyzed UK Biobank participants free of baseline significant structural CVD or prior major cardiac surgery. VAC parameters were derived from arterial stiffness metrics and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Associations were assessed using multivariable Cox or Fine-Gray models with false discovery rate (FDR) correction. Incremental prognostic value was evaluated using likelihood ratio tests, C-indices, and continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI).
resultsThe study included 38,144 participants (mean age 63.5 ± 7.5 years; 47.2% men) with a median follow-up of 4.82 years. After adjustment for clinical features, all three VAC parameters were associated with increased risk of AF, stroke, HF, CHD, all-cause and CVD mortality (except ASI/GLS for CHD). For incident HF, the addition of VAC parameters yielded substantial incremental value, raising C-indices to 0.789-0.835 with NRIs of 11.0%-24.1%. Beyond some respective conventional CMR indices, all three VAC parameters remained independent predictors for incident stroke, whereas ePWV/GLS was specifically independent for incident AF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.29), HF (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11-1.43), and CHD (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.001-1.23). Furthermore, while VAC parameters were independently associated with all-cause mortality regardless of LVEF, their associations with CVD mortality were largely attenuated by LVEF.
conclusionIn the general population, non-invasive VAC parameters predict various adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Incorporating ASI/GLS or ePWV/GLS into traditional risk assessment enhances prognostic value in specific clinical scenarios.
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.