4.7 Article

High-throughput ambulatory assessment of digital reactive hyperemia: Concurrent validity with known cardiovascular risk factors and potential confounding

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 468-472

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.09.019

关键词

Ambulatory care; Cardiovascular diseases; Cross-sectional analysis; Reactive hyperemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Reactive hyperemia index (RHI) measurement through digital peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT) is proposed for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk screening. We evaluated the concurrent validity of RHI, measured in a high-throughput ambulatory setting, with known CVD risk factors and biomarkers. Methods. PAT was included in the 2007 EADS/Augsburg (Germany) cohort follow-up. CVD risk factors (age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, physical activity, prevalent coronary heart disease, family history, cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure (BP), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR)) and biomarkers (d-dimers, fibrinogen, log(c-reactive protein)) were assessed. The relationship between RHI and CVD risk factors and biomarkers was evaluated using multivariate linear regression, controlling for potential confounders (time of day, time since subject's last meal, baseline heart rate, examiner). Results. Of 926 subjects approached, 710 underwent PAT and 603 (mean age 44.9 +/- 10 years, 88.7% men) with complete data were included for analysis. RHI was significantly related to being female (beta=0.128, p=0.02), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (beta=-0.001, p=0.02), systolic BP (beta=0.007, p<0.001), WHR (beta=-1.04, p<0.01), time of day (beta=-0.011, p=0.04) and time since last meal (beta=0.013, P<0.01). Conclusions. Concurrent validity was partially demonstrated, while the need to control for potential confounding was reinforced. Participation was high and may be higher in less time-constrained settings. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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