Key result
Flow-mediated vasodilation measurement using an upper arm cuff yielded similar results to a forearm cuff (10.13% vs 9.8%) for differentiating subjects with and without cardiovascular risk factors.
Why the study?
Does the location of the occlusion device (upper arm vs forearm) affect the accuracy of flow-mediated vasodilation in differentiating subjects with and without cardiovascular risk factors?
Cross-Sectional (n=124)
Does the location of the occlusion device (upper arm vs forearm) affect the accuracy of flow-mediated vasodilation in differentiating subjects with and without cardiovascular risk factors?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.13% vs 9.8%
The location of the occlusion cuff (upper arm vs forearm) does not affect the accuracy of flow-mediated vasodilation in identifying endothelial dysfunction associated with cardiovascular risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Upper-arm cuff FMD may be interchangeable with forearm for risk stratification; hypothesis-generating for protocol standardization in endothelial studies.
Silva et al. (2005) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk factors (n=124). Cuff location in the upper arm vs. Cuff location in the forearm was evaluated on Flow-mediated vasodilation (%FMV). Flow-mediated vasodilation measurement using an upper arm cuff yielded similar results to a forearm cuff (10.13% vs 9.8%) for differentiating subjects with and without cardiovascular risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: