Key result
Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity derived from the distance formula was significantly lower than that from surface-distance measurement (9.27 vs 9.88 m/s), but showed similar vascular associations.
Why the study?
Inaccurate determination of arterial path-length by surface-distance measurement causes error in calculating CFPWV, prompting investigation into whether a population-derived distance formula strengthens associations with vascular alterations.
Does calculating CFPWV using a distance formula improve its association with macro- and microvascular alterations compared to surface-distance measurement in older adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=489)
Does calculating CFPWV using a distance formula improve its association with macro- and microvascular alterations compared to surface-distance measurement in older adults?
The method of determining arterial path-length (distance formula vs surface-distance) does not significantly influence the strength of association between carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity and vascular biomarkers.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
DF yields no stronger CFPWV links to macro- or microvascular markers than SD; leaves open whether path-length method alters clinical utility.
Introduction Inaccurate determination of arterial path-length by surface-distance (SD) measurement is an inherent source of error in calculating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (CFPWV). A recent development in calculating arterial path-length by a simple distance formula (DF) for CFPWV has been shown to not only remove intercentre measurement variability but also strengthen the association between CFPWV and traditional cardiovascular risk factors [1]. We determined whether the association of macro- and microvascular alterations with CFPWV derived from the distance formula (CFPWV-DF) would be stronger than that with CFPWV derived from the surface-distance measurement (CFPWV-SD). Methods CFPWV-DF and CFPWV-SD were obtained from 489 older adults (67.2 ± 8.8 yrs, 154 F, 244 CVD). Macrovascular [carotid lumen diameter (LD), carotid inter-adventitial diameter (IAD), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), carotid total plaque area, and ankle-brachial pressure index] and microvascular [reactive hyperaemia index and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR)] parameters were also obtained. Results CFPWV-DF was significantly lower than CFPWV-SD (9.27 ± 2.38 vs 9.88 ± 2.55 m/s, p < 0.001), which resulted from a longer arterial path-length estimated by SD than DF (495.4 ± 44.8 vs 465.3 ± 20.6 mm, p < 0.001). The significant associations observed between CFPWV-SD and LD (r = 0.264), IAD (r = 0.303), and IMT (r = 0.165) were similarly observed between CFPWV-DF and LD (r = 0.253), IAD (r = 0.303), and IMT (r = 0.183, all p < 0.001). This was also the case with UACR (r = 0.163 and r = 0.141, both p = 0.001). Other parameters did not show any association in either CFPWV. Conclusion The association of macro- and microvascular alterations with CFPWV-DF was not stronger than that with CFPWV-SD, suggesting that arterial path-length determination methods may not influence interactions between vascular biomarkers and CFPWV.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aizawa et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease risk in older adults (n=489). Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity derived from distance formula (CFPWV-DF) vs. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity derived from surface-distance measurement (CFPWV-SD) was evaluated on Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (m/s) (p=<0.001). Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity derived from the distance formula was significantly lower than that from surface-distance measurement (9.27 vs 9.88 m/s), but showed similar vascular associations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: