Key result
Noninvasive aortic ultrafast pulse wave velocity was significantly higher in patients with a Framingham risk score ≥10% compared to those with a score <10% (9.4 vs. 5.3 m/s, p < 0.01).
Why the study?
Aortic pulse wave velocity assesses aortic stiffness, but the association between local noninvasive ultrafast aortic PWV and cardiovascular risk models needed evaluation.
Does noninvasive aortic ultrafast pulse wave velocity (ufcPWV) correlate with theoretical PWV and differentiate between Framingham cardiovascular risk groups in adult subjects?
Cross-Sectional (n=69)
No
Does noninvasive aortic ultrafast pulse wave velocity (ufcPWV) correlate with theoretical PWV and differentiate between Framingham cardiovascular risk groups in adult subjects?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports investigation of aortic PWV for enhanced risk stratification; leaves open whether it improves prediction beyond existing models.
Background Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) enables the direct assessment of aortic stiffness, which is an independent risk factor of cardiovascular (CV) events. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between aortic PWV and CV risk model classified into three groups based on the Framingham risk score (FRS), i.e., low-risk (<10%), intermediate-risk (10~20%) and high-risk (>20%). Methods To noninvasively estimate local PWV in an abdominal aorta, a high-spatiotemporal resolution PWV measurement method (>1 kHz) based on wide field-of-view ultrafast curved array imaging (ufcPWV) is proposed. In the ufcPWV measurement, a new aortic wall motion tracking algorithm based on adaptive reference frame update is performed to compensate errors from temporally accumulated out-of-plane motion. In addition, an aortic pressure waveform is simultaneously measured by applanation tonometry, and a theoretical PWV based on the Bramwell-Hill model (bhPWV) is derived. A total of 69 subjects (aged 23–86 years) according to the CV risk model were enrolled and examined with abdominal ultrasound scan. Results The ufcPWV was significantly correlated with bhPWV ( r = 0.847, p < 0.01), and it showed a statistically significant difference between low- and intermediate-risk groups (5.3 ± 1.1 vs. 8.3 ± 3.1 m/s, p < 0.01), and low- and high-risk groups (5.3 ± 1.1 vs. 10.8 ± 2.5 m/s, p < 0.01) while there is no significant difference between intermediate- and high-risk groups (8.3 ± 3.1 vs. 10.8 ± 2.5 m/s, p = 0.121). Moreover, it showed a significant difference between two evaluation groups [low- (<10%) vs. higher-risk group (≥10%)] (5.3 ± 1.1 vs. 9.4 ± 3.1 m/s, p < 0.01) when the intermediate- and high-risk groups were merged into a higher-risk group. Conclusion This feasibility study based on CV risk model demonstrated that the aortic ufcPWV measurement has the potential to be a new approach to overcome the limitations of conventional systemic measurement methods in the assessment of aortic stiffness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kang et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk (n=69). Higher cardiovascular risk (Framingham risk score ≥10%) vs. Low cardiovascular risk (Framingham risk score <10%) was evaluated on Aortic ultrafast pulse wave velocity (ufcPWV) (p=<0.01). Noninvasive aortic ultrafast pulse wave velocity was significantly higher in patients with a Framingham risk score ≥10% compared to those with a score <10% (9.4 vs. 5.3 m/s, p < 0.01).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: