Why the study?
Are noninvasive methods to assess pulse wave velocity reasonable surrogates for invasive aortic pulse wave velocity in predicting subclinical organ damage?
Are noninvasive methods to assess pulse wave velocity reasonable surrogates for invasive aortic pulse wave velocity in predicting subclinical organ damage?
Noninvasive pulse wave velocity assessments are reasonable surrogates for invasive measurements, with aoPWVestim performing as well as invasive methods in predicting subclinical organ damage.
Noninvasive PWV surrogates may aid monitoring; leaves open whether they should replace invasive assessment in practice.
CfPWVsub, cfPWVdir0.8, and aoPWVestim are reasonable surrogates for aoPWVinv. AoPWVinv predicts subclinical organ damage better than cfPWVs, and as good as aoPWVestim.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weber et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: