Aortic pulse wave velocity is significantly elevated in never-treated individuals with metabolic syndrome and serves as an independent predictor of its presence, suggesting its utility in detecting early vascular stiffness.
MetS associated with higher aortic PWV; leaves open whether non-invasive stiffness measures improve risk stratification in untreated patients.
The purpose of this study was to compare the value and evaluate the validity of non-invasive methods for the detection of vascular stiffness in never-treated individuals with metabolic syndrome (MetS). A total of 59 subjects (mean age, 60 ± 12 years; male:female = 35:24) were enrolled in the study and were categorized into the positive MetS (MetS[+]: N = 32) and negative group (MetS[−]: N = 27), according to the parameters set by the National Cholesterol Education Program’s Adult Treatment Panel III. Pulse wave velocity (PWV) of the aorta, arm, and leg, Framingham risk score (FRS), ankle-brachial index (ABI), and carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) for vascular aging were measured for the two groups. Aortic PWV (PWV aor ) was significantly higher in MetS(+) than MetS(−) group (7.0 ± 1.4 m/s vs. 8.4 ± 1.6 m/s, p < 0.01), while ABI was significantly lower in MetS(+) than MetS(−) group (1.2 ± 0.1 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2, p = 0.03), respectively. FRS was significantly higher in MetS(+) than MetS(−) group (11 ± 5 vs. 14 ± 4, p = 0.05). The both mean IMT was higher in MetS(+) than MetS(−) group (right: 0.94 ± 0.20 mm vs. 0.81 ± 0.20 mm, p = 0.03; left: 0.93 ± 0.20 mm vs. 0.79 ± 0.20 mm, p = 0.03, respectively). For predicting the probability of the presence of MetS, PWV aor was an independent tool ( p = 0.04; odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 3.42) and a cut-off value of PWV aor of 7.4 m/s showed a sensitivity of 66.7% and a specificity of 47.6%. We suggest that PWV aor , combined with traditional tools, can play an important role as a complementary or alternative tool for the detection of vascular stiffness in never-treated individuals with MetS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: