Why the study?
Does total arterial compliance (CT) correlate better with left ventricular mass index compared to carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity in subjects with established or suspected hypertension?
Does total arterial compliance (CT) correlate better with left ventricular mass index compared to carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity in subjects with established or suspected hypertension?
Total arterial compliance estimated by a novel formula is a stronger determinant of left ventricular mass index and hypertrophy than regional aortic stiffness (cf-PWV) in hypertensive patients.
Suggests total arterial compliance may better predict left ventricular hypertrophy than regional aortic stiffness in hypertension; leaves open.
Aim: The investigation of the association between total arterial compliance (CT)—estimated by a novel technique—with left ventricular mass (LVM) and hypertrophy (LVH). Our hypothesis was that CT may be better related to LVM compared to the gold-standard regional aortic stiffness. Within the frame of the ongoing cross-sectional study “SAFAR,” 226 subjects with established hypertension or with suspected hypertension underwent blood pressure (BP) assessment, carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV), and echocardiographic measurement of LVM. LVM index (LVMI) was calculated by the ratio of LVM to body surface area. CT was estimated by a previously proposed and validated formula: CT = 36.7 /cf-PWV2 [ml/mmHg]. LVMI was related to age (r = 0.207, p = 0.002), systolic BP (r = 0.248, p < 0.001), diastolic BP (r = 0.139, p = 0.04), mean BP (r = 0.212, p = 0.002), pulse pressure (r = 0.212, p = 0.002), heart rate (r = −0.172, p = 0.011), cf-PWV (r = 0.268, p < 0.001), and CT (r = −0.317, p < 0.001). The highest correlation was observed for CT that was significantly stronger than the respective correlation of cf-PWV (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, CT was a stronger determinant, compared to cf-PWV, of LVMI and LVH. It remains to be further explored whether CT has also a superior prognostic value beyond and above local or regional (segmental) estimates of pulse wave velocity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papaioannou et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: