PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2020Journal of Hypertension19 citationsOpen Access

Associations between carotid-femoral and heart-femoral pulse wave velocity in older adults: the Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities study

LSLee StonerMMMichelle L. MeyerAKAnna Kucharska‐Newton

Structured PICO

Does heart-femoral pulse wave velocity (hfPWV) show strong agreement with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) in older adults?

P
Population
4133 older-aged African-American and white adults (mean age 75.2 years) in the community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study.
I
Intervention
Heart-femoral pulse wave velocity (hfPWV) measurement
C
Comparator
Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) measurement
O
Outcome
Agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV using Pearson's correlation coefficient, standard error of estimate, and Bland-Altman analysissurrogate

Heart-femoral pulse wave velocity shows strong agreement with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and may serve as a simpler alternative for assessing central arterial stiffness.

Limitations

  • Greater variability and bias for higher PWV values

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) is widely used in epidemiological studies to assess central arterial stiffness. However, despite being superior to traditional risk factors in predicting cardiovascular outcomes, cfPWV is not routinely used in clinical practice. cfPWV assessments require applanation of the carotid artery, which can be cumbersome, and individual-level factors, including carotid artery plaque, may confound the measurements. Heart-femoral PWV (hfPWV) may be a suitable alternative measure of central arterial stiffness. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the strength of the agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV. METHODS: We evaluated 4133 older-aged 75.2 (5.0) years African-American and white adults in the community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. cfPWV and hfPWV were measured using an automated cardiovascular screening device. Agreement between the two measurements was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), standard error of estimate (SEE) and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: There was a strong (r > 0.7) agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV (r = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.82-0.84). Although the mean cfPWV 11.5 m/s (SD: 3.0) and hfPWV 11.5 m/s (SD: 2.3) were comparable, the SEE was 1.7 m/s. Inspection of the Bland-Altman plot revealed greater variability and bias for higher PWV values, with higher PWV further away from the regression line. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest good agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV. hfPWV is a simpler alternative to cfPWV that is less likely to be confounded by individual-level factors. Considering the greater variability for higher PWV values, further work is warranted to determine the importance of local artery mechanics to both measures.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Stoner et al. (2020) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a076049964d5135c0d40d39https://doi.org/10.1097/hjh.0000000000002449
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper