Key result
Heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity demonstrated strong agreement with carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (ICC 0.82) and very strongly tracked acute changes in central arterial stiffness (ICC 0.92).
Why the study?
Carotid-femoral PWV assessment is technically challenging and confounded by carotid plaque; whether changes in heart-femoral PWV track changes in carotid-femoral PWV was unknown.
Does heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity (hfPWV) accurately track acute changes in carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV) in young, healthy adults?
Observational (n=20)
Single-blind
Not randomized
No
Does heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity (hfPWV) accurately track acute changes in carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV) in young, healthy adults?
Heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity is a valid, simpler alternative to carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity that accurately tracks acute changes in central arterial stiffness.
Background: Carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV) is the reference standard measure of central arterial stiffness. However, it requires assessment of the carotid artery, which is technically challenging, and subject-level factors, including carotid artery plaque, may confound measurements. A promising alternative that overcomes these limitations is heart-femoral PWV (hfPWV), but it is not known to what extent changes in cfPWV and hfPWV are associated. Objectives: To determine, (1) the strength of the association between hfPWV and cfPWV; and (2) whether change in hfPWV is associated with change in cfPWV when central arterial stiffness is perturbed. Methods: Twenty young, healthy adults [24.0 (SD: 3.1) years, 45% female] were recruited. hfPWV and cfPWV were determined using Doppler ultrasound at baseline and following a mechanical perturbation in arterial stiffness (120 mmHg thigh occlusion). Agreement between the two measurements was determined using mixed-effects regression models and Bland-Altman analysis. Results: There was, (1) strong (ICC > 0.7) agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV (ICC = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.69, 0.90), and, (2) very strong (ICC > 0.9) agreement between change in hfPWV and cfPWV (ICC = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.86, 0.96). cfPWV was significantly greater than hfPWV at baseline and during thigh occlusion ( both P < 0.001). Inspection of the Bland-Altman plot, comparing cfPWV and corrected hfPWV, revealed no measurement magnitude bias. Discussion: The current findings indicate that hfPWV and cfPWV are strongly associated, and that change in cfPWV is very strongly associated with change in hfPWV. hfPWV may be a simple alternative to cfPWV in the identification of cardiovascular risk in clinical and epidemiological settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stone et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Healthy adults (n=20). Heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity (hfPWV) vs. Carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV) was evaluated on Agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV (ICC 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.90). Heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity demonstrated strong agreement with carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (ICC 0.82) and very strongly tracked acute changes in central arterial stiffness (ICC 0.92).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: