Key result
Higher estimated pulse wave velocity linked to ~23% higher all-cause mortality per m/s.
Why the study?
There is controversy over whether estimated pulse wave velocity adds prognostic information beyond cardiovascular risk factors or traditional risk estimation models in the general population.
Does estimated pulse wave velocity predict all-cause and cardiovascular mortality independently of traditional risk factors in the general population?
Cohort (n=18,956)
Yes
Does estimated pulse wave velocity predict all-cause and cardiovascular mortality independently of traditional risk factors in the general population?
Hazard Ratio: 1.23 (95% CI 1.23–1.5)
Estimated pulse wave velocity is a simple, cost-free marker that independently predicts mortality and improves traditional risk stratification in the general population.
As an indicator of arterial stiffness, there is controversy over whether estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV) add additional prognostic information other than cardiovascular risk factors or traditional risk estimation model in general population. Data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 1999–2018 was analyzed. Cardiovascular risk factors were collected and Framingham Risk Score (FRS) was calculated. Using all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as outcomes, Cox and restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis was performed. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, Harrell's C-statistic and net reclassification index (NRI) analysis were used to assess whether ePWV adds additional predictive value. The association between ePWV and outcomes was independent of cardiovascular risk factors (HR = 1.23 [95%CI 1.23–1.50] per m/s for all-cause mortality, and 1.52 [1.30–1.78] for cardiovascular mortality) and FRS (1.22 [1.12–1.32] for all-cause mortality, and 1.32 [1.10–1.59] for cardiovascular mortality). Except for ePWV and all-cause mortality adjusted by FRS, a liner association was found between ePWV and outcomes. For predictive value, the area under ROC and C-index of the model added with ePWV was higher than the one with FRS or risk factors alone (P < 0.01). The elevated ePWV upgraded 1338456 subjects from high-intermediate to high FRS category, and NRI was 3.61 % and 2.62 % for all-cause and cardiovascular deaths, respectively (all P < 0.001). In general population, the present study demonstrated the association between ePWV and all-cause, cardiovascular mortality is independent of cardiovascular risk factors and traditional risk estimated model. ePWV also added additional information to them in predicting clinical outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in general population (n=18,956). Estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV) vs. Traditional cardiovascular risk estimation models and risk factors was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.23-1.50). Estimated pulse wave velocity was independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.23 per m/s) and added prognostic information to traditional risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: