Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Arterial Wave Reflections and Incident Cardiovascular Events and Heart Failure

Open access
Chirinos, Julio A., Kips, Jan G., Jacobs, David R., Brumback, Lyndia, Duprez, Daniel A., Kronmal, Richard, Bluemke, David A., Townsend, Raymond R., Vermeersch, Sebastian, Segers, Patrick·2012·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

Background Experimental and physiologic data mechanistically implicate wave reflections in the pathogenesis of left ventricular failure and cardiovascular disease, but their association with these outcomes in the general population is unclear. Objectives To assess the relationship between central pressure profiles and incident cardiovascular events. Methods Aortic pressure waveforms were derived from a generalized transfer function applied to the radial pressure waveform recorded non-invasively from 5,960 participants in the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The central pressure waveform was separated into forward and reflected waves using a physiologic flow waveform. Reflection magnitude (RM=[reflected/forward wave amplitude] ×100), augmentation index (AIx=[second/first systolic peak] ×100) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA=[radial/aortic pulse pressure] ×100) were assessed as predictors of cardiovascular events (CVE) and congestive heart failure (CHF) during median 7.61 years of follow-up. Results After adjustment for established risk factors, aortic AIx independently predicted hard CVE (HR per 10%-increase=1.08; 95%CI=1.01-1.14; P=0.016), whereas PPA independently predicted all CVE (HR per 10%-increase=0.82; 95%CI=0.70-0.96; P=0.012). RM was independently predictive of all CVE (hazard ratio [HR] per 10%-increase=1.34; 95%CI=1.08-1.67; P=0.009), hard CVE (HR per 10%-increase=1.46; 95%CI=1.12-1.90; P=0.006) and strongly predictive of new-onset CHF (HR per 10%-increase=2.69; 95%CI=1.79-4.04; P<0.0001), comparing favorably to other risk factors for CHF as judged by various measures of model performance, reclassification and discrimination. In a fully-adjusted model, compared to non-hypertensive subjects with low RM, the HR for hypertensive subjects with low RM, non-hypertensive subjects with high RM and hypertensive subjects with high RM were 1.81 (95%CI=0.85-3.86), 2.16 (95%CI=1.07-5.01) and 3.98 (95%CI=1.96-8.05), respectively. Conclusions Arterial wave reflections represent a novel strong risk factor for CHF in the general population.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.054

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 431

Metadata

Authors
Chirinos, J. A., Kips, J. G., Jacobs, D. R., Brumback, L., Duprez, D. A., Kronmal, R., Bluemke, D. A., Townsend, R. R., Vermeersch, S., & Segers, P.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
60
Issue
21
Pages
2170-2177
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1658843519
Cited by
431
References
36
FWCI
19.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Arterial Wave Reflections and Incident Cardiovascular Events and Heart Failure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.054
The paper
Chirinos, J. A., Kips, J. G., Jacobs, D. R., Brumback, L., Duprez, D. A., Kronmal, R., Bluemke, D. A., Townsend, R. R., Vermeersch, S., & Segers, P. (2012). Arterial Wave Reflections and Incident Cardiovascular Events and Heart Failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.07.054

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.