Differences in Coronary Blood Flow in Aortic Regurgitation and Systemic Arterial Hypertension Have Implications for Diastolic Blood Pressure Targets: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to evaluate coronary blood flow (CBF) in patients with systemic arterial hypertension (HTN) and to compare it with CBF in patients with aortic regurgitation (AR). A systematic literature search was conducted using the reference terms "coronary blood flow" and either "aortic regurgitation" or "hypertension." The selection criteria included CBF measurement in a concomitant control group, except studies evaluating CBF with aortic-valve replacement surgery. Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 318 persons with HTN, with 185 controls; and 102 persons with AR, with 144 controls. Despite an overall increase in CBF in HTN, CBF per gram of left ventricular mass was significantly (P < 0.0001) reduced. In contrast, CBF per gram of left ventricular mass was significantly (P = 0.004) increased in AR. Aortic regurgitation was associated with a significant (P < 0.0001) increase in CBF during systole and away from diastole, in contrast to persons with HTN. Aortic-valve replacement reversed the increase in systolic CBF. These data suggest that patients with HTN are more vulnerable than patients with AR to lower diastolic blood pressure (DBP), because resting CBF is compromised in HTN. Furthermore, patients with HTN may not compensate for DBP reductions by shifting CBF to systole, such as can occur with the low DBP in AR. Lower DBP in patients with AR cannot be used to justify treating patients with HTN to similar DBP because of the dramatic differences in CBF between the 2 conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".