Key result
Patients with verified coronary artery disease had significantly higher aortic pulse wave velocity (10.1 vs 9.6 m/sec) and augmentation index (34.2% vs 30.9%) compared to healthy subjects (P<0.05).
Why the study?
Do local and regional arterial stiffness parameters differ between patients with verified CAD and healthy subjects, and do oscillometric and echo-tracking measurement methods correlate?
Case-Control (n=250)
Do local and regional arterial stiffness parameters differ between patients with verified CAD and healthy subjects, and do oscillometric and echo-tracking measurement methods correlate?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.1% vs 9.6%
p-value: p=<0.05
Local and regional arterial stiffness parameters measured by oscillometric and echo-tracking methods provide similar information and are significantly increased in patients with verified CAD compared to healthy controls.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arterial stiffness parameters in CAD may refine risk assessment; leaves open added value beyond SYNTAX score in prospective studies.
Gaszner et al. (2011) conducted a case-control in Coronary artery disease (n=250). Verified coronary artery disease vs. Healthy subjects was evaluated on Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWVao) (p=<0.05). Patients with verified coronary artery disease had significantly higher aortic pulse wave velocity (10.1 vs 9.6 m/sec) and augmentation index (34.2% vs 30.9%) compared to healthy subjects (P<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: