4.2 Article

Brachial-ankle vs carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity as a determinant of cardiovascular structure and function

Journal

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 24-31

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1002259

Keywords

pulse wave velocity; arterial stiffness; ventriculo-arterial coupling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV) is a validated marker of arterial stiffening over the central arteries. Brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (ba-PWV) integrates the mechanical properties from both the central and peripheral arteries and may be more representative than cf-PWV as arterial load for left ventricle (LV). We compared ba-PWV with cf-PWV for the association of cardiovascular structure and function in 320 subjects with various degrees of abnormality in cardiac structure and function. ba-PWV (by oscillometric technique) and cf-PWV (by tonometric technique) were measured simultaneously, and were highly correlated (r = 0.79, P<0.001). Both ba-PWV and cf-PWV were significantly correlated with LV mass, but the correlation was better with ba-PWV (r = 0.29 vs r = 0.22, P = 0.0219). While ba-PWV and cf-PWV were similarly significantly correlated with LV end-systolic elastance and mitral E/A ratio, ba-PWV had better correlation with isovolumic relaxation constant (r = 0.34 vs r = 0.27, P = 0.0202) than cf-PWV. In addition, the correlation was also significantly stronger with ba-PWV than with cf-PWV for other indices of arterial stiffness, including carotid incremental modulus (r = 0.59 vs 0.50, P = 0.0013), effective arterial elastance (r = 0.41 vs r = 0.33, P = 0.0081) and carotid augmentation index (r = 0.38 vs r = 0.32, P = 0.0368). In conclusion, ba-PWV correlates better with LV mass and diastolic function and other indices of arterial function than cf-PWV, probably because ba-PWV encompasses a greater territory of arterial tree than cf-PWV.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available