Is Arterial Stiffness Increased in Pediatric Heart Transplant Recipients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult heart transplant recipients (HTR) have increased arterial stiffness, despite resolution of the underlying pre‐transplant diagnosis. The impaired vascular function may also contribute to the reported impaired exercise tolerance in these patients. Patient age and the duration and sequela of the pre‐transplant cardiovascular disorder significantly contribute to the increased arterial stiffness observed in adult HTR, while the direct role of immunosuppressive therapies is less understood. We tested the hypothesis that despite young age, pediatric HTR will display increased arterial stiffness owing to their significant pre‐transplant cardiovascular disease and post‐transplant physical inactivity. We also tested the hypothesis that arterial stiffness would be related to exercise tolerance (peak oxygen uptake, VO2). METHODS Six pediatric HTR (3 females and 3 males; 10 ± 3 years) and 12 age‐ and sex‐matched healthy controls (6 females and 6 males; 10 ± 2 years) were studied. Carotid‐radial pulse‐wave velocity by ECG‐gated sequential applanation tonometry was used to determine arterial stiffness. HTR subjects also completed a peak VO2 test by cycle ergometry. Data were analyzed through an independent samples t ‐test with significance differences being accepted at P < 0.05. RESULTS Pulse wave velocity was not different between HTR (8.50 ± 1.93 m/s) and the healthy controls (8.55 ± 1.52 m/s, P = 0.951). In addition, pulse wave velocity was not related to peak VO2 in HTR ( r = −.529, P = 0.140). CONCLUSION Unlike in adult HTR, pediatric HTR have normal arterial stiffness compared to healthy‐matched controls, and arterial stiffness was not related to peak VO2 in this pediatric population. These findings suggest that the pre‐transplant diagnosis sequela do not unfavorably alter arterial stiffness in young pediatric HTR and that reduced peak VO2 in pediatric HTR is not related to arterial stiffness. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".