Key result
Single radial pressure waveforms estimate aortic PWV with a ~0.23 m/s mean difference from cfPWV.
Why the study?
Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity is the noninvasive gold standard for aortic stiffness, but measurement is challenging because it requires simultaneous carotid and femoral signals.
Does estimation of aortic PWV using a single radial pressure waveform agree with measured carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity in human subjects?
Cross-Sectional (n=111)
Does estimation of aortic PWV using a single radial pressure waveform agree with measured carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity in human subjects?
Aortic pulse wave velocity can be reliably estimated using a single radial pressure waveform, offering a less complex alternative to conventional carotid-femoral PWV measurement for assessing arterial stiffness.
Objective. Aortic stiffness is associated with risk of cardiovascular events. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) is the current noninvasive gold standard for assessing aortic stiffness. However, the cfPWV measurement is challenging, requiring simultaneous signals at the carotid and femoral sites. Approach. In this study, the aortic PWV is estimated using a single radial pressure waveform and compared with cfPWV. 111 subjects’ aortic PWVs are estimated from the decomposition of the derived central aortic pressure waveform based on three types of reconstructed flow waveform: the peak of triangular flow waveform based on 30% ejection time ( Q 30%tri ), the peak of triangular flow waveform based on inflection point ( Q tri ), and averaged flow waveform ( Q avg ). The central aortic pressure waveform is derived from a radial pressure waveform via a validated transfer function. Main results. The Q avg is used for estimating aortic PWV without the determination of the peak point of the triangular flow waveforms. The estimated aortic PWV shows good agreement with cfPWV. The mean difference ± SD is 0.29 ± 1.50 m s −1 ( r 2 = 0.29, p < 0.001) for the Q 30%tri ; 0.27 ± 1.40 m s −1 ( r 2 = 0.38, p < 0.001) for the Q tri ; 0.23 ± 1.39 m s −1 ( r 2 = 0.40, p < 0.001) for the Q avg . The correlation between estimated aortic PWV based on Q 30%tri and measured cfPWV is weak. The results of Q tri and Q avg show no obvious difference. Significance. The proposed method can be used as a less complex way than conventional measurement of cfPWV to further assess arterial stiffness and predict cardiovascular risks or events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Aortic stiffness (n=111). Estimated aortic PWV from single radial pressure waveform vs. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) was evaluated on Agreement between estimated aortic PWV and cfPWV (Mean difference 0.23 m/s (r2=0.40), p=<0.001). Estimating aortic pulse wave velocity using a single radial pressure waveform showed good agreement with cfPWV (mean difference 0.23 ± 1.39 m/s, r2=0.40, p<0.001 for Qavg).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: