ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Inferior vena cava diameter and vascular calcification jointly influenced cardiovascular outcomes among patients with end-stage kidney disease.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExcess body fluid, a prevalent complication in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), correlates with adverse outcomes. Whether higher vascular resistance, in the form of vascular calcification (VC), modulates the negative outcome influences posed by excess fluid remains unclear. We aimed to determine whether combination of inferior vena cava (IVCD) and VC, in the form of aortic arch calcification (AoAC) severity, influences the risk of adverse outcomes in ESKD patients.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed enrolled chronic hemodialysis patients from a single center, dividing them according to IVCD and VC severity. After comparing their baseline clinical features, we analyzed the combined influences of IVCD and VC on ESKD patients’ risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality over follow-up.
resultsTotally 227 ESKD patients were assigned to the non-to-mild VC/low IVCD (30.0%), non-to-mild VC/high IVCD (28.6%), mod-to-severe VC/low IVCD (23.3%), and mod-to-severe VC/high IVCD (18.1%) groups, respectively. After nearly 4 years follow-up, we showed the risk of MACEs was the highest among those with mod-to-severe VC and high IVCD (hazard ratio [HR]5.45,95% confidence interval [CI]2.33–12.75), followed by non-to-mild VC and high IVCD (HR 4.39,95% CI 1.93-10.00), and those with mod-to-severe VC and low IVCD (HR 3.91,95% CI 1.64–9.33), accounting for demographic, morbidities, laboratory, and medication variables. Similar trend was found on the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.
conclusionsFluid status and vascular resistance in the form of IVCD and VC additively worsened the cardiovascular outcome among ESKD patients. Cardiovascular care for ESKD patients should ideally encompass volume management and VC amelioration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.