4.5 Editorial Material

Possible link between large artery stiffness and coronary flow velocity reserve

期刊

HEART
卷 94, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2007.126128

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Population studies have shown that increased large artery stiffness is an independent predictor of cardiovascular events. Experimental studies have shown that a stiff aorta is associated with decreased coronary blood flow. However, a link between large artery stiffness and coronary microvascular function in the clinical setting has not been demonstrated previously. Objective: To evaluate the relationship between large artery stiffness and coronary flow velocity reserve ( CFVR). Patients and methods: 102 consecutive subjects ( mean ( SD) age 62 ( 10) years) without coronary and peripheral arterial disease were enrolled in the study. After 15 minutes' rest, measurements were obtained of brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity ( baPWV), augmentation index ( Alx) from a carotid pulse tracing, and transthoracic echocardiographic measures, including coronary flow velocity in the left anterior descending coronary artery. In addition, coronary flow velocity during hyperaemia was measured during an intravenous infusion of adenosine triphosphate. CFVR was defined as the ratio of hyperaemic to basal coronary velocity. Results: Subjects with decreased CFVR (< 2.5; n= 40) had significantly higher baPWV ( 1848 ( 369) cm/ s vs 1548 (333) cm/ s; p<0.001), greater Alx ( 25.3 ( 11.0)% vs 16.3 ( 20.0)%; p= 0.01) and greater pulse pressure ( PP) ( 64 ( 13) mm Hg vs 54 ( 13) mm Hg; p< 0.001) than those with normal CFVR (>= 2.5; n= 62). Multivariate analysis showed that Alx and PP were independent predictors of CFVR ( r = 20.32, p, 0.001 and 20.25, p= 0.02, respectively). Conclusions: The data suggest that large artery stiffening is linked to a reduction of CFVR, which may partially explain the higher cardiac event rate in patients with increased large artery stiffness.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据