4.0 Article

Adjusting Flow-Mediated Dilation for Shear Stress Stimulus Allows Demonstration of Endothelial Dysfunction in a Population with Moderate Cardiovascular Risk

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 592-600

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000226227

关键词

Ischemia; Hemodynamics; Human arteries; Endothelial function; Cardiovascular risk; Blood flow; Reactive hyperemia; Shear stress

资金

  1. IU AAU/Bell-UpdykeWillett Kinesiology Research Fund
  2. Ministerio de Educacion y Cultura de Espana

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: Although normalization of brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) to individual shear stress (FMD: shear stress ratio) has been proposed to improve this measure of endothelial function, the clinical utility of FMD normalization has not yet been demonstrated. We tested (1) whether following conventional 5-min forearm occlusion, the FMD: shear stress ratio would discriminate a population with moderate cardiovascular risk (MR) from a low-risk (LR) population, and (2) whether the dose-response profile relating shear stress to FMD would be different between the 2 populations. Methods: Five different magnitudes of reactive hyperemia-induced shear stress were applied to 20 MR and 20 LR subjects by manipulating forearm cuff occlusion duration. Brachial artery diameters and velocities were measured via high-resolution ultrasound. To quantify the hyperemic stimulus, shear stress area under the curve was individually calculated for the duration of time-to-peak dilation. Results: Following 5-min of forearm occlusion, FMD: shear stress ratio (p = 0.041), but not FMD (p = 0.286), discriminated MR from LR. The slope of the shear stress-FMD regression line was lower in MR compared to the LR (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The FMD: shear stress ratio distinguished reduced endothelial function in a population with MR. The dose-response profile of the shear stress-FMD relationship appears to differ between populations of distinct cardiovascular risk. Copyright (C) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.0
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