METHODS: Our aim was to determine normative EGJ metrics in a large international cohort of healthy volunteers undergoing HRM (Medtronic, Laborie, and Diversatek software) acquired from 16 countries in four world regions. EGJ-CI was calculated by the same two investigators using a distal contractile integral-like measurement across the EGJ for three respiratory cycles and corrected for respiration (mm Hg cm), using manufacturer-specific software tools. EGJ morphology was designated according to Chicago Classification v3.0. Median EGJ-CI values were calculated across age, genders, HRM systems, and regions.
RESULTS: Of 484 studies (28.0 years, 56.2% F, 60.7% Medtronic studies, 26.0% Laborie, and 13.2% Diversatek), EGJ morphology was type 1 in 97.1%. Median EGJ-CI was similar between Medtronic (37.0 mm Hg cm, IQR 23.6-53.7 mm Hg cm) and Diversatek (34.9 mm Hg cm, IQR 22.1-56.1 mm Hg cm, P = 0.87), but was significantly higher using Laborie equipment (56.5 mm Hg cm, IQR 35.0-75.3 mm Hg cm, P
METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from two HF registries and five HFrEF RCTs were used to create three subpopulations: one RCT population (n = 16 917; 21.7% females), registry patients eligible for RCT inclusion (n = 26 104; 31.8% females), and registry patients ineligible for RCT inclusion (n = 20 810; 30.2% females). Clinical endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and first HF hospitalization at 1 year. Males and females were equally eligible for trial enrolment (56.9% of females and 55.1% of males in the registries). One-year mortality rates were 5.6%, 14.0%, and 28.6% for females and 6.9%, 10.7%, and 24.6% for males in the RCT, RCT-eligible, and RCT-ineligible groups, respectively. After adjusting for 11 HF prognostic variables, RCT females showed higher survival compared to RCT-eligible females (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.83), while RCT males showed higher adjusted mortality rates compared to RCT-eligible males (SMR 1.16; 95% CI 1.09-1.24). Similar results were also found for cardiovascular mortality (SMR 0.89; 95% CI 0.76-1.03 for females, SMR 1.43; 95% CI 1.33-1.53 for males).
CONCLUSION: Generalizability of HFrEF RCTs differed substantially between the sexes, with females having lower trial participation and female trial participants having lower mortality rates compared to similar females in the registries, while males had higher than expected cardiovascular mortality rates in RCTs compared to similar males in registries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The calculated sample size was 128 subjects. The crown width/height, arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width of the maxilla and mandible were obtained via digital calliper (Mitutoyo, Japan). A total of 4325 variables were measured. The sex differences in the crown width and height were evaluated. Analysis of variance was applied to evaluate the differences between arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups.
RESULTS: Males had significantly larger mean values for crown width and height than females (P ≤ 0.05) for maxillary and mandibular arches, both. There were no significant differences observed for the crown width/height ratio in various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width (intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar) groups (P ≤ 0.05) in maxilla and mandible, both.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate sexual disparities in the crown width and height. Crown width and height has no significant relation to various arch length, arch perimeter, and arch width groups of maxilla and mandible. Thus, it may be helpful for orthodontic and prosthodontic case investigations and comprehensive management.