Arterial Stiffness Is Associated With QTc Interval Prolongation in Patients With Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A prolonged corrected QT (QTc) interval is a known risk factor for adverse cardiac events. Understanding the determinants and physiologic correlates of QTc is necessary for selecting proper strategies to reduce the risk of adverse events in high-risk patients. We sought to evaluate the role of arterial stiffness in heart failure as a determinant of QTc prolongation. Method: This was an observational study that recruited ambulatory heart failure patients (New York Heart Association Classes I–II) from an outpatient heart failure clinic. In the supine resting position, consented patients underwent noninvasive 12-lead electrocardiograph (ECG) and hemodynamic monitoring using BioZ Dx impedance cardiography. ECGs were evaluated by a reviewer blinded to clinical data, and QTc interval was automatically computed. Patients with pacing or bundle branch block (BBB) were analyzed separately. Strengths of associations were evaluated using Pearson’s r coefficients and multivariate linear regression. Results: The final sample ( N = 44) was 62 ± 13 years of age and 64% male with ejection fraction of 34% ± 12%. At univariate level, QTc interval moderately ( r > .50) correlated with cardiac output, left cardiac work index, systemic vascular resistance, and total arterial compliance in patients with intrinsically narrow QRS complexes. At the multivariate level, increasing systemic vascular resistance and decreasing total arterial compliance remained independent predictors of widening QTc interval in this group ( R 2 = .54). No significant correlations were seen in patients with pacing or BBB. Conclusions: In the absence of conduction abnormalities, magnitude of arterial stiffness, an indirect measure of endothelial dysfunction, is associated with QTc interval prolongation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".