3.8 Article

Aortic pulse wave velocity and its relationship with complexity of coronary artery disease based on SYNTAX score

期刊

HEART ASIA
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 109-115

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartasia-2013-010492

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Aortic pulse wave velocity (APWV), a marker of arterial stiffness, was found to be a good predictor for the presence of incipient vascular disease and cardiovascular events in observational studies. APWV measured by echo Doppler is a simple and readily available method comparable with other costlier and complex modalities of APWV measurement like MRI, Complior method or applanation tonometry. Aims and objectives No previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between APWV findings and the complexity of coronary artery disease (CAD). Our aim was to examine the relationship between APWV findings and the severity of SYNTAX scores (SX scores). Methods 500 patients who had undergone APWV measurements and elective coronary angiography from September 2012 to June 2013 were taken. Pulsed Doppler ultrasound (6.6 MHZ) probe with ECG synchronisation was used to calculate APWV. SYNTAX scoring was performed by observers who were blinded to APWV values. Results A significant, nearly linear correlation between APWV and advancing CAD (p<0.0001) was observed. Patients with dual-vessel and triple-vessel disease had significantly higher APWV than patients without CAD. It was also found that mean APWV values were significantly more in patients with high or intermediate SX scores than in patients with low SX scores. The Fischer's linear discriminant analysis showed a cut-off value of APWV for predicting the possibility of having CAD to be >11.5 m/s. Conclusions APWV has predictive value for the SX score. A positive relation exists between aortic stiffening and coronary atherosclerosis and APWV measured by 2D Doppler is a good predictor of advancing CAD. modality provides an accurate extensive assessment of central aortic stiffness.

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

3.8
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