Why the study?
The study aim was to investigate the independent association between estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV) and clinical outcomes.
Does estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV) improve prediction of mortality and cardiovascular events beyond traditional risk scores in apparently healthy subjects?
Does estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV) improve prediction of mortality and cardiovascular events beyond traditional risk scores in apparently healthy subjects?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Estimated pulse wave velocity is associated with all-cause mortality but does not add independent prognostic value for cardiovascular outcomes beyond traditional risk factors.
The Reference Values for Arterial Stiffness Collaboration has derived an equation using age and mean blood pressure to estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV), which predicted cardiovascular events independently of Systematic COoronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) and Framingham Risk Score. The study aim was to investigate the independent association between ePWV and clinical outcomes in 107 599 apparently healthy subjects (53% men) aged 19 to 97 years from the MORGAM Project who were included between 1982 and 2002 in 38 cohorts from 11 countries. Using multiple Cox-regression analyses, the predictive value of ePWV was calculated adjusting for country of inclusion and either SCORE, Framingham Risk Score, or traditional cardiovascular risk factors (age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, body mass index [BMI], total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). Cardiovascular mortality consisted of fatal stroke, fatal myocardial infarction, or coronary death, and the composite cardiovascular end point consisted of stroke, myocardial infarction, or coronary death. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell’s C -statistic. Adjusting for country and logSCORE or Framingham Risk Score, ePWV was associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI 1.20–1.25] per m/s or 1.32 [1.29–1.34]), cardiovascular mortality (1.26 [1.21–1.32] or 1.35 [1.31–1.40]), and composite cardiovascular end point (1.19 [1.16–1.22] or 1.23 [1.20–1.25]; all P <0.001). However, after adjusting for traditional cardiovascular risk factors, ePWV was only associated with all-cause mortality (1.15 [1.08–1.22], P <0.001) and not with cardiovascular mortality (0.97 [0.91–1.03]) nor composite cardiovascular end point (1.10 [0.97–1.26]). The areas under the last 3 receiver operator characteristic curves remained unchanged when adding ePWV. Elevated ePWV was associated with subsequent mortality and cardiovascular morbidity independently of systematic coronary risk evaluation and Framingham Risk Score but not independently of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vishram‐Nielsen et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: