Key result
Recalculating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity using accurate intra-arterial distances from MRI significantly reduced, but did not eliminate, the measurement bias compared to MRI-measured aortic pulse wave velocity (mean difference 0.96 ms-1).
Why the study?
Does recalculating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity using MRI-derived intra-arterial path length improve agreement with MRI-measured aortic pulse wave velocity?
Observational (n=114)
Single-blind
No
Does recalculating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity using MRI-derived intra-arterial path length improve agreement with MRI-measured aortic pulse wave velocity?
Mean Difference: 0.96 (95% CI 0.36–1.55)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.1% vs 8.1%
p-value: p=0.001
Inaccuracies in surface distance measurements largely, but not entirely, explain the discrepancy between tonometry-based carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and MRI-measured aortic pulse wave velocity.
Discrepancies between cf-PWV and MRI-PWV warrant method-specific clinical caution; leaves open standardization needs for research.
Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV) and aortic PWV measured using MRI (MRI-PWV) show good correlation, but with a significant and consistent bias across studies. The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether the differences between cf.-PWV and MRI-PWV can be accounted for by inaccuracies of currently used distance measurements. One hundred fourteen study participants were recruited into one of 4 groups: Type 2 diabetes melltus (T2DM) with cardiovascular disease (CVD) (n = 23), T2DM without CVD (n = 41), CVD without T2DM (n = 25) and a control group (n = 25). All participants underwent cf.-PWV, cardiac MRI and whole body MR angiography(WB-MRA). 90 study participants also underwent aortic PWV using MRI. cf.-PWVEXT was performed using a SphygmoCor device (Atcor Medical, West Ryde, Australia). The true intra-arterial pathlength was measured using the WB-MRA and then used to recalculate the cf.-PWVEXT to give a cf.-PWVMRA. Distance measurements were significantly lower on WB-MRA than on external tape measure (mean diff = −85.4 ± 54.0 mm,p < 0.001). MRI-PWV was significantly lower than cf.-PWVEXT (MRI-PWV = 8.1 ± 2.9 vs. cf.-PWVEXT = 10.9 ± 2.7 ms−1,p < 0.001). When cf.-PWV was recalculated using the inter-arterial distance from WB-MRA, this difference was significantly reduced but not lost (MRI-PWV = 8.1 ± 2.9 ms−1 vs. cf.-PWVMRA 9.1 ± 2.1 ms−1, mean diff = −0.96 ± 2.52 ms−1,p = 0.001). Recalculation of the PWV increased correlation with age and pulse pressure. Differences in cf.-PWV and MRI PWV can be predominantly but not entirely explained by inaccuracies introduced by the use of simple surface measurements to represent the convoluted arterial path between the carotid and femoral arteries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weir‐McCall et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=114). Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity recalculated with MRI distance (cf-PWVMRA) vs. MRI-measured aortic pulse wave velocity (MRI-PWV) was evaluated on Difference between MRI-PWV and cf-PWVMRA (MD 0.96, 95% CI 0.36-1.55, p=0.001). Recalculating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity using accurate intra-arterial distances from MRI significantly reduced, but did not eliminate, the measurement bias compared to MRI-measured aortic pulse wave velocity (mean difference 0.96 ms-1).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: