Pulsatile Hemodynamics in Congestive Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulse pressure, an indirect measure of vascular stiffness and pulsatile load, predicts clinical events in congestive heart failure (CHF), suggesting that abnormal pulsatile load may contribute to CHF. This study was designed to assess more direct measures of central pulsatile load in CHF. Noninvasive hemodynamic evaluations were performed in 28 subjects with CHF and 40 controls using calibrated tonometry of the brachial, radial, femoral, and carotid arteries along with echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) diameter and Doppler flow. Characteristic impedance (Z(c)) was calculated as the ratio of DeltaP (carotid) and DeltaQ (LVOT flow) in early systole. Carotid-radial (CR-PWV) and carotid-femoral (CF-PWV) pulse wave velocities were calculated from tonometry. Augmentation index was assessed from the carotid waveform. Total arterial compliance (TAC) was calculated using the area method. Brachial pulse pressure was elevated (62+/-16 versus 53+/-15 mm Hg, P=0.015) in CHF because of lower diastolic pressure (66+/-10 versus 73+/-9 mm Hg, P=0.003). CHF had higher Z(c) (225+/-76 versus 184+/-66 dyne. sec. cm(-5), P=0.020). CF-PWV did not differ (9.7+/-2.7 versus 9.2+/-2.0, P=0.337), whereas CR-PWV was lower in CHF (8.6+/-1.4 versus 9.4+/-1.5, P=0.038). There was no difference in TAC (1.4+/-0.5 versus 1.4+/-0.6 mL/mmHg, P=0.685), and augmentation index was lower in CHF (8+/-17 versus 21+/-13%, P=0.001). CHF subjects have elevated central pulsatile load (Z(c)), which is not apparent in global measures such as augmentation index or TAC, possibly because of contrasting changes in central and peripheral conduit vessels. This increased pulsatile load represents an important therapeutic target in CHF.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".