Key result
Brachial-femoral pulse wave velocity showed strong overall agreement (ICC 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.85) with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity in young, healthy individuals.
Why the study?
Carotid-femoral PWV is technically difficult to obtain, and research is limited comparing it to the simpler brachial-femoral PWV both at rest and after perturbation.
Does brachial-femoral pulse-wave velocity agree with carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity for assessing arterial stiffness in young and healthy individuals?
Observational (n=18)
Does brachial-femoral pulse-wave velocity agree with carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity for assessing arterial stiffness in young and healthy individuals?
Brachial-femoral pulse wave velocity is a user-friendly alternative that shows strong agreement with the gold-standard carotid-femoral measurement for assessing central arterial stiffness.
bfPWV may offer a simpler stiffness measure in young adults; leaves open validation in broader populations and outcome linkage.
BACKGROUND: Carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity (cfPWV) is the gold standard measure of arterial stiffness and independently predicts cardiovascular disease. However, obtaining cfPWV requires technical precision and can be difficult in some populations. Brachial-femoral PWV (bfPWV) is a simpler alternative, but there is limited research comparing the two measures. For physiological studies, it is important to know how well the measures agree at rest, and to what extent changes in the measures correspond after perturbation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the overall and repeated measures agreement between cfPWV and bfPWV. METHODS: cfPWV and bfPWV were measured in the supine and seated positions, both before and after a 3-h bout of prolonged sitting. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for overall agreement was calculated using the random variance components from linear mixed-model regression. Repeated measures agreement (change in cfPWV vs. change in bfPWV) was calculated using repeated measures correlation. RESULTS: Complete data from 18 subjects (22.6 ± 3.1 years old, 33% female) were included in the analysis. There was strong (ICC ≥ 0.70) overall agreement (ICC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85) and very strong (ICC ≥ 0.90) repeated measures agreement (ICC, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94) between cfPWV and bfPWV. DISCUSSION: The current findings indicate strong overall agreement and very strong repeated measures agreement between bfPWV and cfPWV. bfPWV is a user-friendly alternative method that agrees with cfPWV-based assessments of central arterial stiffness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Poles et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Healthy (n=18). Brachial-femoral pulse wave velocity (bfPWV) vs. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) was evaluated on Overall agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient) (ICC 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.85). Brachial-femoral pulse wave velocity showed strong overall agreement (ICC 0.75; 95% CI 0.60-0.85) with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity in young, healthy individuals.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: