Transitioning to a 60-degree position increased carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity from 7.96 to 8.83 m/s (P<0.001) and femoral-tibial pulse wave velocity from 8.88 to 13.6 m/s (P<0.001).
Observational (n=90)
Does a 60-degree tilt position alter pulse wave velocity compared to a supine position in healthy individuals and those with cardiovascular risk factors?
Hydrostatic pressure from a 60-degree tilt significantly alters arterial stiffness measurements compared to the supine position, highlighting the importance of patient positioning during pulse wave velocity assessments.
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 8.83% vs 7.96%
valor p: p=<0.001
Objective: Arterial stiffness is determined by measuring pulse wave velocity. This is done in a supine position because the blood pressure is not altered by the added hydrostatic pressure. Putting the patient in a supine position has been part of the barrier of integration of PWV into clinical practice. Newer devices now allow for the measurement of PWV in the sitting position. Our preliminary results indicate that sitting PWV is much higher than supine PWV given a higher hydrostatic pressure Objective To quantify the changes in carotid-femoral PWV (CF-PWV) and femoral-tibial PWV (FT-PWV) using a tilt table to change the angle. Identify the determinants of PWV change in response to hydrostatic pressureDesign and method: Single-session repeated-measures study including 90 participants (49 healthy control participants (group A) and 41 with cardiovascular risk factors (group B) underwent PWV assessments using Complior Analyze in both supine position and at 60 degrees positions with duplicate measurements. The relationship between PWVs in supine and 60-degree position was examined using linear regression analysis. We then examined if there was a difference in response between groups of subjects. Results: Study design: The cohort had a mean age of 47±19 years, with 46 females (51%). Supine blood pressure averaged 126±14/79±11 mmHg, while at 60 degrees, it was 123±14/81±10 mmHg (systolic P=0.013, diastolic P=0.042). Heart rates increased from 64±9 bpm to 80±16 bpm (P<0.001). Transitioning from supine to a 60-degree position, cf-PWV rose from 7.96±2.05 m/s to 8.83±3.06 m/s (P<0.001), and ft-PWV from 8.88±1.80 m/s to 13.6±2.73 m/s (P<0.001). There was a strong correlation between supine and 60degree for cf-PWV (r=0.79, P<0.001), while ft-PWV showed no correlation (r=-0.02, P=0.87). After adjusting for changes in BP and heart rate, there was a borderline group-position interaction for cf-PWV (P=0.058) suggesting a possibly differential rate of increase between the groups in response to the added hydrostatic pressure. Conclusions: The study highlights a significant increase in aortic stiffness (cf-PWV) due to hydrostatic pressure, while femoral stiffness (ft-PWV) remained unchanged. These findings reveal the arterial tree's heterogeneity and its implications for vascular health and cardiovascular risk assessment.
Addour et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Cardiovascular risk factors (n=90). 60-degree position (hydrostatic pressure) vs. Supine position was evaluated on carotid-femoral PWV (cf-PWV) (p=<0.001). Transitioning to a 60-degree position increased carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity from 7.96 to 8.83 m/s (P<0.001) and femoral-tibial pulse wave velocity from 8.88 to 13.6 m/s (P<0.001).