Key result
Finger occlusion DTM shows comparable Vascular Reactivity Index values to standard brachial occlusion.
Why the study?
The validity of digital thermal monitoring, including a modified finger cuff occlusion technique, compared with the standard flow-mediated dilation protocol needed evaluation.
Does digital thermal monitoring with finger occlusion provide a valid assessment of vascular reactivity compared to brachial artery occlusion in adult participants?
Cross-Sectional (n=38)
Randomized order of assessments
No
Does digital thermal monitoring with finger occlusion provide a valid assessment of vascular reactivity compared to brachial artery occlusion in adult participants?
Mean Difference: -0.03 (95% CI -0.15–0.09)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.58% vs 1.55%
p-value: p=0.47
Finger-based digital thermal monitoring is a valid and more comfortable alternative to standard brachial occlusion for assessing endothelial function in the clinical setting.
Comparable VRI supports finger occlusion validity; extends DTM validation but leaves open clinical adoption pending larger studies.
Digital thermal monitoring (DTM) is an alternative, noninvasive, methodology to evaluate endothelial function using temperature change on finger as a surrogate measure of the magnitude of vascular reactivity index (VRI). A most recent modification to the technique includes the application of occlusion cuff at the base of a finger. We evaluated the validity of DTM compared with the standard flow‐mediated dilation (FMD) protocol. Thirty‐eight (22 males; 38 ± 15 years) participants were studied. Occlusion cuff was placed over the right antecubital fossa or at the base of the right index finger. Temperature monitors were placed on bilateral index fingers to assess change in temperature throughout 5‐min occlusion and recovery phases. VRI values obtained with the finger occlusion (1.58 ± 0.29 AU) were not significantly different from VRI measured with the brachial artery occlusion (1.55 ± 0.26 AU; p = .47), and the agreement of VRI values was confirmed in the Bland‐Altman plot with a mean difference of −0.03 ± 0.34 (95% confidence interval: −0.15 to 0.09). Shear rate AUCI was significantly correlated with VRI obtained from brachial occlusion ( r = .34) and finger occlusion VRI ( r = .54; all p < .05). Moreover, brachial FMD was significantly correlated with brachial occlusion VRI ( r = .69; p < .05) and finger occlusion VRI ( r = .53; p < .05). Therefore, finger‐based VRI may be a valid and novel alternative measure of endothelial function that is more suitable than the standard FMD or hyperemic shear rate for the assessment of endothelial function in the routine clinical setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heath et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy volunteers and general population (n=38). Digital thermal monitoring with finger occlusion vs. Digital thermal monitoring with brachial artery occlusion was evaluated on Vascular Reactivity Index (VRI) (Mean difference -0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.09, p=0.47). Digital thermal monitoring with finger occlusion yielded Vascular Reactivity Index values that were not significantly different from standard brachial artery occlusion (mean difference -0.03, p=0.47).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: