4.3 Article

Augmentation index and central aortic stiffness in middle-aged to elderly individuals

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 642-647

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2007.01.008

关键词

augmentation index; aortic stiffness; pulse-wave velocity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: increased aortic stiffness contributes to systolic hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk. The augmentation index (AI), ie, the percentage of central pulse pressure attributed to reflected wave overlap in systole, was proposed as a noninvasive indicator of increased arterial stiffness. We evaluated this hypothesis by investigating relations between AI and other direct measures of aortic stiffness. Methods: Tonometric carotid- and femoral-pressure waveforms, Doppler aortic flow, and aortic-root diameter were assessed in 123 individuals with uncomplicated systolic hypertension and 29 controls of comparable age and sex. Carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (PWV) was assessed from the carotid-femoral time delay and bodysurface measurements. Aortic PWV was assessed from the ratio of the upstroke of carotid pressure and aortic flow velocity and was used to calculate proximal aortic compliance as [aortic area] / [1.06 x (aortic pWV)(2)]. Results: Partial correlations (adjusted for age, sex, presence of hypertension, height, weight, and systolic ejection period) showed no association between AI and carotid-femoral PWV (R = -0.05, P = .54). The AI was significantly though weakly related directly with aortic compliance (R = 0.21, P = .012) and inversely with aortic PWV (R = -0.198, P = .017). However, higher stiffness (lower compliance and higher PWV) was associated with lower AI. Conclusions: Increased AI is not a reliable surrogate for increased aortic stiffness. Decreasing AI with decreasing compliance (increasing aortic stiffness) may be attributable to impedance matching and reduced wave reflection at the interface between the aorta and the muscular arteries.

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

4.3
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