Key result
CAVI0 showed an inexplicable negative correlation with diastolic blood pressure (β -0.257) and paradoxically lower values in young hypertensive women compared to healthy women, indicating it is an inappropriate index compared to CAVI.
Cross-Sectional (n=8,631)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
CAVI obtained by the VaSera system is an appropriate clinical index of blood pressure-independent arterial stiffness, whereas CAVI0 is not due to its strong dependency on diastolic blood pressure.
AIM: among large populations, and to explore reasons of the difference. METHODS: The subjects were 5,293 Japanese healthy and 3,338 hypertensive people. Simple and multiple regression analyses were performed using age, sex, body mass index, systolic, and diastolic blood pressure (Pd) as variables. Sub-group analysis was performed by sex and age. The CAVI values with and without adjustment by reference pressure were also compared. RESULTS: values in women of the hypertensive group in the 30-39 age group was significantly lower than that of the corresponding healthy group. Differences of CAVI values with or without modification using the reference pressure were 1.09%±1.38% for the healthy group and 3.68%±1.66% for the hypertensive group. CONCLUSION: is not.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shirai et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=8,631). CAVI0 vs. CAVI was evaluated on Correlation with diastolic blood pressure (Pd) in the healthy population (standardized partial regression coefficient) (β -0.257, p=<0.001). CAVI0 showed an inexplicable negative correlation with diastolic blood pressure (β -0.257) and paradoxically lower values in young hypertensive women compared to healthy women, indicating it is an inappropriate index compared to CAVI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: