Ventricular dysfunction in patients with coronary slow-flow phenomenon: A single-center case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Coronary slow-flow phenomenon (CSFP), characterized by delayed distal vessel opacification of contrast, in the absence of significant epicardial coronary stenosis, has effects on exercise capacity and clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore the systolic and diastolic function of patients with CSFP and to compare it with a group of controls with normal coronary anatomy and flow.Materials and Methods: In this case–control study, 45 consecutive CSFP patients and 45 age-, body mass index-, and presentation season-matched controls with normal coronary arteries and normal coronary flows were enrolled from Seyyedoshohada Heart Center from March 2015 to March 2016. A transthoracic echocardiography was done by a blinded echocardiographer using both conventional and tissue Doppler imaging techniques.Results: Patients with CSFP were more likely to be male (P = 0.006) and smoker (P = 0.02) compared to controls. Other risk factors were not different between the two groups. There were no differences between groups in terms of the peak early (E) and late (A) diastolic velocities, deceleration time, early (E') and late (A') peak diastolic velocities at the mitral annulus, and the systolic mitral annular velocity (S'). Global longitudinal strain and peak systolic strain rates was lower in patients with CSFP compared to controls (−16.7% ±2.4% vs. −18.9% ±1.6%, P < 0.001 and 1.10 ± 0.1 vs. 1.24 ± 0.3, P = 0.008, respectively).Conclusion: Patients with CSFP showed signs of the left ventricular systolic dysfunction in tissue Doppler echocardiography, which underlines the importance of close follow-up in these patients. Patients with CSFP should be screened for ventricular function preferably by tissue Doppler echocardiography.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".