MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400920914 · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2024.1435677

The association between pulse wave velocity and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4400920914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahra Esmaeili, Pegah Bahiraie, Zahra Vaziri, Alireza Azarboo, Amir Hossein Behnoush, Amirmohammad Khalaji, Aida Bazrgar, Pouya Tayebi, Naghmeh Ziaie

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulse wave velocityMedicineArterial stiffnessInternal medicineMeta-analysisCardiologyHeart failureConfidence intervalStrictly standardized mean differenceBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The arterial stiffness measured by pulsed wave velocity (PWV) is associated with heart failure (HF). However, the effectiveness of arterial stiffness and PWV as prognostic indicators in patients with HFpEF and HFrEF is still unclear. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we synthesized the prognostic value of PWV and arterial stiffness in HF patients. Methods Four databases, including Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were systematically searched for published studies assessing the relationship between PWV and HF from inception up to August 31, 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare PWV in HF (HFrEF and HFpEF) and controls. Meta-regressions based on age, year of publication, sample size, and gender (male percentage) were also conducted. Results The systematic search yielded 5,977 results, of which 58 met our inclusion criteria and 24 were analyzed quantitatively. Studies included 64,687 patients with a mean age of 53.7 years, and 41,803 (67.3%) were male. Meta-analysis of 19 studies showed that PWV was significantly higher in HF patients compared to the controls (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.43–1.66, P < 0.001, I 2 = 93%). Moreover, nine studies have measured PWV among HFrEF and HFpEF patients and found no significant difference (SMD −0.51, 95% CI −1.03 to 0.02, P = 0.057, I2 = 95%). Moreover, increased PWV was linked to an increased chance of developing new-onset HF in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusions Patients with HF exhibit significantly higher arterial stiffness, as indicated by PWV, compared to the normal population. However, this association was not significant between HFrEF and HFpEF patients. Future research is warranted to establish the potential prognostic role of PWV in HF. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023479683 , PROSPERO (CRD42023479683).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.013
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207