Key result
Above-median cfPWV/GLS ratio predicts ~102% higher CV event risk, but reference-defined abnormalities do not.
Why the study?
Noninvasive imaging markers combining ventricular and arterial properties may help predict cardiac disease, prompting assessment of the cfPWV to GLS ratio in the general population.
Does the cfPWV/GLS ratio predict incident cardiovascular events in the general population?
Cohort (n=1,026)
Does the cfPWV/GLS ratio predict incident cardiovascular events in the general population?
The cfPWV/GLS ratio provides age- and sex-specific reference values but does not independently predict cardiovascular events better than GLS alone in the general population.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
cfPWV/GLS ratio does not independently predict events beyond GLS; leaves open its added prognostic value in general populations.
PURPOSE: Noninvasive imaging markers combining ventricular and arterial properties may help predict cardiac disease. We conducted a general population study to determine reference values, clinical correlates, and the predictive value of the ratio of the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) to the left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS). METHODS: We measured cfPWV by applanation tonometry and 4-chamber GLS by echocardiography in 1026 individuals (mean age 50.3 years; 52% women). We derived reference values for cfPWV/GLS from a low-risk subsample. Clinical correlates of cfPWV/GLS were determined by stepwise regression. We calculated multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for incident cardiovascular (CV) events (median follow-up: 10.1 years). RESULTS: Upper limits of normality for cfPWV/GLS varied with sex and age, ranging from 0.41 m/s% in young women up to 0.64 m/s% in older men. Higher cfPWV/GLS correlated directly with male sex, age, heart rate, pulse pressure, mean arterial pressure, and left ventricular mass (p < 0.05 for all). On a continuous scale, only GLS was a significant predictor of CV events after adjustment (HR per 1% decrease: 1.11; p = 0.0078). A cfPWV/GLS ratio above the median (>0.37 m/s%) did predict future CV events after adjustment (HR vs. below median: 2.02; p = 0.0067). However, abnormal cfPWV/GLS defined by reference limits or by cutoffs from literature did not independently predict CV events (p ≥ 0.31 for all). CONCLUSION: Age- and sex-specific reference values for cfPWV/GLS were reported. cfPWV/GLS related to age, sex, and blood pressure. In contrast to GLS, cfPWV/GLS did not emerge as an independent predictor for CV events in the community.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cauwenberghs et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in General population (n=1,026). cfPWV/GLS ratio vs. below median cfPWV/GLS was evaluated on incident cardiovascular (CV) events (HR 2.02, p=0.0067). Although a cfPWV/GLS ratio above the median predicted future cardiovascular events (HR 2.02, p=0.0067), abnormal cfPWV/GLS defined by reference limits did not independently predict events.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: