4.8 Article

Prognostic value of aortic pulse wave velocity as index of arterial stiffness in the general population

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 113, 期 5, 页码 664-670

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.579342

关键词

arterial stiffness; cardiovascular diseases; epidemiology; pulse pressure; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background - Few population studies addressed the prognostic significance of aortic pulse wave velocity (APWV) above and beyond other cardiovascular risk factors. Methods and Results - We studied a sex- and age-stratified random sample of 1678 Danes aged 40 to 70 years. We used Cox regression to investigate the prognostic value of APWV, office pulse pressure (PP), and 24-hour ambulatory PP while adjusting for mean arterial pressure ( MAP) and other covariates. Over a median follow-up of 9.4 years, the incidence of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular end points, cardiovascular mortality, and fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease amounted to 154, 62, and 101 cases, respectively. We adjusted for sex, age, body mass index, MAP measured in the office (conventional PP and APWV) or by ambulatory monitoring (24-hour PP), smoking, and alcohol intake. With these adjustments, APWV maintained its prognostic significance in relation to each end point (P < 0.05), whereas office and 24-hour PP lost their predictive value (P < 0.19), except for office PP in relation to coronary heart disease (P = 0.02). For each 1-SD increment in APWV (3.4 m/s), the risk of an event increased by 16% to 20%. In sensitivity analyses, APWV still predicted all cardiovascular events after standardization to a heart rate of 60 beats per minute, after adjustment for 24-hour MAP instead of office MAP, and/or after additional adjustment for the ratio of total to HDL serum cholesterol and diabetes mellitus at baseline. Conclusions - In a general Danish population, APWV predicted a composite of cardiovascular outcomes above and beyond traditional cardiovascular risk factors, including 24-hour MAP.

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

4.8
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