4.7 Article

Pulse Wave Velocities Derived From Cuff Ambulatory Pulse Wave Analysis Effects of Age and Systolic Blood Pressure

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 74, 期 1, 页码 111-116

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.12756

关键词

blood pressure; hemodynamics; pulse wave analysis

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [P01-HL047540]
  2. University of Pittsburgh [R01-HL114082]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulse wave velocity (PWV), a measure of arterial stiffness, is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We investigated the relationship of ambulatory brachial cuff-based oscillometric PWV (oPWV) to 2 known correlates: age and brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP). In 234 participants in the Masked Hypertension Study, we analyzed 7284 validated hourly ambulatory SBP and oPWV readings using the Mobil-O-Graph monitor, which uses a proprietary pulse wave analysis algorithm to determine oPWV. Carotid-femoral PWV (cfPWV) was also measured. Mixed linear models were developed to estimate oPWV from age and ambulatory SBP. Participants were 34% male, with mean (SD) age 52.8 (9.9) years, SBP 123.8 (18.4) mm Hg, and oPWV 7.6 (1.3) m/s and cfPWV of 7.7 (1.7) m/s. The relationship of oPWV to age and SBP is given below: oPWV=1.0796-0.0317xAge+0.0015xAge(2) + 0.0325xSBP Age uniquely accounted for an estimated 75% of the total variation of oPWV, whereas SBP uniquely accounted for 20%; these findings were confirmed in an external validation dataset. Together, age and SBP accounted for 99.1% of the total variance of oPWV but (only) 40.2% of the variance of cfPWV. The correlation between oPWV and cfPWV was 0.58 but was only 0.11 after controlling for age and SBP. We conclude that the Mobil-O-Graph's oPWV is nearly completely explained by age and SBP and its relationship to cfPWV is because of their shared associations with age and SBP. Other hemodynamic variables derived from oscillometric pulse wave analysis may be useful and deserve additional scrutiny.

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