4.7 Article

Ambulatory arterial stiffness index derived from 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 47, 期 3, 页码 359-364

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000200695.34024.4c

关键词

blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory; arteries; blood pressure; epidemiology; population

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We hypothesized that 1 minus the slope of diastolic on systolic pressure during 24-hour ambulatory monitoring ( ambulatory arterial stiffness index [AASI]) might reflect arterial stiffness. We compared AASI with established measures of arterial stiffness and studied its distribution in Chinese and European populations. We used 90207 SpaceLabs monitors and the SphygmoCor device to measure AASI, central and peripheral pulse pressures, the central (CAIx) and peripheral (PAIx) systolic augmentation indexes, and aortic pulse wave velocity. In 166 volunteers, the correlation coefficient between AASI and pulse wave velocity was 0.51 ( P < 0.0001). In 348 randomly recruited Chinese subjects, AASI correlated ( P < 0.0001) with CAIx ( r = 0.48), PAIx ( r = 0.50), and central pulse pressure ( r = 0.50). AASI increased with age and mean arterial pressure but decreased with body height. Both before and after adjustment for arterial wave reflections by considering height and heart rate as covariates, AASI correlated more ( P < 0.0001) closely with CAIx and PAIx than 24-hour pulse pressure. Among normotensive subjects, the 95th percentile of AASI was 0.55 in Chinese and 0.57 in 1617 Europeans enrolled in the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring. The upper boundary of the 95% prediction interval of AASI in relation to age ranged from 0.53 at 20 years to 0.72 at 80 years. In conclusion, AASI is a new index of arterial stiffness that can be easily measured under ambulatory conditions. Pending additional validation in outcome studies, normal values of AASI are probably < 0.50 and 0.70 in young and older subjects, respectively.

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