Age-, sex-, and body side-specific reference intervals for blood flow velocity parameters were established for healthy individuals, demonstrating that fixed clinical cut-off values may misclassify risk.
Cross-Sectional (n=3,619)
No
This study establishes age-, sex-, and body-side-specific reference intervals for blood flow velocity parameters across multiple arteries, demonstrating that single fixed cut-off values are inadequate for accurate physiological assessment.
Ultrasound-derived blood flow velocity (BFV) levels e.g., peak systolic velocity (PSV), intrabeat indexes (e.g., resistive), and intersegment ratios e.g., internal/common carotid artery (ICA/CCA) PSV ratio are assessed to describe cardiovascular physiology and health status (e.g., disease severity evaluation and/or risk stratification). In this respect, fixed cut-off values (disregard of age or sex) have been proposed to define “significant” vascular disease from BFV-derived data (parameters). However, the use of single fixed cut-off values has limitations. Accurate use of BFV-derived parameters requires knowing their physiological age-related profiles and the expected values for a specific subject. To our knowledge, there are no studies that have characterized BFV profiles in large populations taking into account: (i) data from different age-stages (as a continuous) and transitions (childhood–adolescence–adulthood), (ii) complementary parameters, (iii) data from different arteries, and (iv) potential sex- and hemibody-related differences. Furthermore, (v) there is little information regarding normative data reference intervals (RIs) for BFV indexes. Aims: The aims of this study are the following: (a) to determine the need for age-, body side-, and sex-specific profiles for BFV levels and derived parameters (intrabeat indexes and intersegment ratios), and (b) to define RIs for BFV levels and parameters, obtained from CCA, ICA, external carotid, vertebral, femoral, and brachial arteries records. Methods: A total of 3,619 subjects (3–90 years) were included; 1,152 were healthy (without cardiovascular disease and atheroma plaques) and non-exposed to cardiovascular risk factors. BFV data were acquired. The agreement between left and right data was analyzed (Concordance correlation, Bland–Altman). Mean and SD equations and age-related profiles were obtained for BFV levels and parameters (regression methods; fractional polynomials). Results: Left and right body-side derived data were not always equivalent. The need for sex-specific RIs was dependent on the parameter and/or age considered. RIs were defined for each studied artery and parameter. Percentile curves were compared with recommended fixed cut-off points. The equations for sex, body-side, and age-specific BFV physiological profiles obtained in the large population (of children, adolescents, and adults) studied were included (spreadsheet formats), enabling to determine for a particular subject, the expected values and potential data deviations.
Zócalo et al. (Thu,) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy subjects (n=3,619). Ultrasound-derived blood flow velocity assessment was evaluated on Age-related physiological profiles and reference intervals for BFV parameters. Age-, sex-, and body side-specific reference intervals for blood flow velocity parameters were established for healthy individuals, demonstrating that fixed clinical cut-off values may misclassify risk.