Prospective analysis reveals high cardio-ankle vascular index predicts heart failure outcomes, suggesting improved risk assessment.
Heart failure (HF) is a substantial public health concern associated with poor prognosis and limited tools for early prediction. Arterial stiffness contributes to the development of HF, particularly with a preserved ejection fraction. The cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) is a noninvasive, pressure-independent marker of arterial stiffness. However, its prognostic value in HF remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate whether CAVI independently predicts HF-related hospitalizations in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and whether it adds prognostic value beyond conventional risk factors. This sub-analysis of the multicenter prospective CAVI-J study included 2,932 Japanese adults aged 40-74 years with cardiovascular risk factors. Participants were stratified into CAVI tertiles and followed up for a median of 4.9 years. The primary outcomes were HF-related hospitalizations and cardiovascular death. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the risk, and the incremental prognostic value was evaluated using global chi-squared statistics and reclassification indices. Primary outcomes were recorded in 32 patients (1.1%). High CAVI (≥9.0) was independently associated with increased risk (hazard ratio 3.18, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-9.31; P = 0.034). When CAVI was added to a model with known conventional risks, the global chi value increased from 8.82 to 18.77 (P = 0.002), and the net reclassification index was 0.621 (P < 0.001). Elevated CAVI independently associated with HF-related hospitalizations and cardiovascular death and modestly improved risk prediction beyond conventional risk factors. However, the discriminative ability remained limited, and further studies are warranted to establish its clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miyoshi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: