Why the study?
Does the choice of distance measure (subtracted vs. direct) alter the assessment of aortic stiffness (cfPWV) in obese children and adolescents compared to healthy controls?
Does the choice of distance measure (subtracted vs. direct) alter the assessment of aortic stiffness (cfPWV) in obese children and adolescents compared to healthy controls?
The choice of distance measurement methodology for cfPWV leads to contradictory conclusions regarding aortic stiffness in obese children and adolescents.
Distance measure choice reverses cfPWV direction in obese youth; leaves open true stiffness effects and method standardization.
Background: The methodology of the gold standard for measuring aortic stiffness, carotidefemoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), has been revised in respect to the choice of distance measure.In order to clarify whether increased aortic stiffness is present in obese children and adolescents we investigated cfPWV with the previous (cfPWV-subtracted) and a newly revised methodology (cfPWV-direct).Methods: In a cross-sectional design, 104 obese patients with age 10e18 years newly referred to the Children's Obesity Clinic were compared to 50 healthy control individuals.CfPWV was measured non-invasively using the SphygmoCor device, while all distance measures were made with a calliper.Results: Opposite to the direct distance, the subtracted distance differed across study groups in relation to height (P < 0.006).CfPWV-subtracted was significantly higher for the obese (4.5 m/s CI: 4.4e4.6 vs. 4.3 m/s CI: 4.2e4.5,P Z 0.03), whereas cfPWV-direct was significantly lower (4.8 m/s CI: 4.7e4.9 vs. 5.1 m/s CI: 4.9e5.3,P Z 0.008).In multiple regression, being obese did
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hvidt et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: