Key result
Oscillometric aortic PWV correlates strongly with CMR in reperfused STEMI patients.
Why the study?
In patients with STEMI, high aortic PWV adversely affects the myocardium, but comparison of oscillometric and CMR methods for PWV assessment was lacking.
Does oscillometric analysis provide acceptable agreement with cardiac magnetic resonance for assessing aortic pulse wave velocity in reperfused STEMI patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=60)
Does oscillometric analysis provide acceptable agreement with cardiac magnetic resonance for assessing aortic pulse wave velocity in reperfused STEMI patients?
Effect estimate: r = 0.724
Absolute Event Rate: 7.4% vs 6.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
Noninvasive oscillometric assessment of aortic pulse wave velocity shows acceptable agreement with the gold-standard CMR transit time method in reperfused STEMI patients.
Oscillometric PWV may serve as a CMR alternative in reperfused STEMI; extends validation but leaves open clinical adoption.
OBJECTIVES: Measurement of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) is the gold standard for assessment of aortic stiffness. In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), high aortic PWV has deleterious effects on the myocardium. In the present study, we compared a novel oscillometric device with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging for the assessment of aortic PWV in STEMI patients. METHODS: We measured aortic PWV in 60 reperfused STEMI patients using two different methods. The oscillometric method (PWVOSC) is based on mathematical transformation of brachial pressure waveforms, oscillometrically determined using a common cuff (Mobil-O-Graph, I.E.M., Stolberg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany). Phase-contrast CMR imaging (1.5 T scanner, Siemens, Erlangen, Bavaria, Germany) at the level of the ascending and abdominal aorta was performed to determine CMR-derived pulse wave velocity with the use of the transit time method. RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 57 ± 11 years; 11 (18%) were women. Median PWVOSC was 7.4 m/s (interquartile range 6.8-8.9 m/s), and median CMR-derived pulse wave velocity was 6.3 m/s (interquartile range 5.7-8.2 m/s) (P < 0.001). A strong correlation was detected between both methods (r = 0.724, P < 0.001). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.62 m/s (upper and lower limit of agreement: 3.84 and -2.61 m/s). The coefficient of variation between both methods was 21%. CONCLUSION: In reperfused STEMI patients, aortic PWV assessed noninvasively by transformation of brachial pressure waveforms showed an acceptable agreement with the CMR-derived transit time method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Feistritzer et al. (2016) conducted a cross-sectional in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=60). Oscillometric method (PWVOSC) vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was evaluated on Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) (r = 0.724, p=<0.001). In reperfused STEMI patients, aortic pulse wave velocity assessed by an oscillometric method showed strong correlation (r=0.724, P<0.001) and acceptable agreement with CMR imaging.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: