Alternative arterial stiffness measures like C1, C2, SV/PP, and SAC showed poor agreement with central PWV, whereas SI, AIx, and CPP demonstrated good agreement.
Cross-Sectional (n=30)
How do various new techniques for measuring arterial stiffness agree with central pulse wave velocity in men with and without coronary artery disease?
While stiffness index, augmentation index, and central pulse pressure show good agreement with central pulse wave velocity, other indices like arterial compliance show poor agreement and may provide complementary information about arterial stiffness.
BACKGROUND: Several new techniques exist for measuring arterial stiffness, but their association with central pulse wave velocity (PWV), an established measure of central arterial stiffness, has not been compared in the same study. The aim of this study was to compare the agreement of the new techniques with central PWV. METHODS: Fifteen men with coronary artery disease (59 +/- 2 years of age) and 15 healthy men (28 +/- 1 years of age) were recruited. The following measures were performed in a random sequence and repeated after 1 week: central and distal pulse wave velocity (PWV), large and small artery compliance (C1 and C2, respectively), and stroke volume/pulse pressure (SV/PP) (measured by HDI/PulseWave CR-2000), augmentation index (AIx) and central pulse pressure (CPR) (Sphygmocor), stiffness index (SI) (Micro Medical Pulse Trace), systemic arterial compliance (SAC) (area method), and brachial PP (Dinamap). Methods were compared using correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Although all measures of arterial stiffness except PWV correlated significantly with central PWV (P 3 Z-scores) between central PWV and C1, C2, SV/PP, and SAC). There was good agreement (CI > 2 Z-scores) between central PWV and SI, AIx, CPP, and brachial PP. The coefficient of variation was lowest with central PWV (7.6%), brachial PP (8.0%), and SV/PP (8.6%) and was significantly higher (P < .05) in increasing order with C1 (11.3%), C2 (15.6%), SI (17.8%), SAC (19.3%), AIx (22.4%), and CPP (25.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our study findings, C1, C2, SV/PP, and SAC show poor agreement with central PWV, an established measure of central arterial stiffness. Indices of this type should therefore be useful in providing a more complete understanding of arterial stiffness. In comparison, SI, AIx, and CPP are more closely related to central arterial stiffness.
Woodman et al. (2005) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary artery disease (n=30). Alternative arterial stiffness measures (C1, C2, SV/PP, SAC, SI, AIx, CPP, brachial PP) vs. Central pulse wave velocity (PWV) was evaluated on Agreement of new techniques with central PWV. Alternative arterial stiffness measures like C1, C2, SV/PP, and SAC showed poor agreement with central PWV, whereas SI, AIx, and CPP demonstrated good agreement.