Key result
Surface distance measurement of CFPWV yielded significantly higher values than the arterial path length formula (9.6 vs 8.9 m/s, P<0.001), affecting associations with cardiovascular risk factors.
Why the study?
Different methods to measure carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (CFPWV), particularly estimating arterial path length, may alter measurements and their associations with cardiovascular risk factors and subclinical vascular biomarkers.
Do different methods of measuring carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity affect the derived values and their associations with cardiovascular risk factors and vascular biomarkers in older adults?
Population
489 older adults (67.2 ± 8.8 years)
Comparison
CFPWV-D vs CFPWV-F vs ePWV
Design
Cross-sectional study
Authors
Loading...
Method choice yields discrepant CFPWV values affecting risk associations; leaves open optimal standardization for clinical and research use.
Cross-Sectional (n=489)
Do different methods of measuring carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity affect the derived values and their associations with cardiovascular risk factors and vascular biomarkers in older adults?
Absolute Event Rate: 9.6% vs 8.9%
p-value: p=< 0.001
Different methods of measuring carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity yield significantly different values and affect associations with cardiovascular risk factors, highlighting the need for methodological consistency across studies.
Aizawa et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk (n=489). Surface distance measurement of CFPWV (CFPWV-D) vs. Arterial path length formula (CFPWV-F) and estimated CFPWV (ePWV) was evaluated on Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (m/s) (p=< 0.001). Surface distance measurement of CFPWV yielded significantly higher values than the arterial path length formula (9.6 vs 8.9 m/s, P<0.001), affecting associations with cardiovascular risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: