OBJECTIVE: Optimal blood pressure control in subjects with diabetes reduces cardiovascular complications. There is theoretical benefit in the assessment of central aortic waveforms including the augmentation index, which is taken as a putative index of stiffness. Transfer functions may be used to reconstruct aortic from radial pressure waveforms; however, a single generalized transfer function may not be appropriate for all patients. We aimed to evaluate the technique in subjects with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Simultaneous invasive central aortic and noninvasive radial waveforms were acquired in 19 subjects with type 2 diabetes, and a diabetes-specific transfer function was derived. Similar data were acquired from 38 age- and sex-matched subjects without diabetes. Central waveforms were reconstructed using a generalized transfer function in all patients and the diabetes-specific transfer function in individuals with diabetes. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in measured central pressures. The error in generalized transfer function-derived systolic pressure was greater in individuals with diabetes (6 +/- 7 mmHg) (mean +/- SD) than without diabetes (2 +/- 8 mmHg) (P<0.05). Errors in other parameters were no different. The diabetes-specific transfer function reduced the error in derived systolic pressure to 0 +/- 7 mmHg in individuals with diabetes--no different than that with the generalized transfer function in individuals without diabetes. The central augmentation index reconstructed by either transfer function was unrelated to that directly measured. CONCLUSIONS: A generalized transfer function is inappropriate for the derivation of central waveforms in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Errors in subjects with diabetes might be reduced with a diabetes-specific transfer function.
OBJECTIVE: Optimal blood pressure control in subjects with diabetes reduces cardiovascular complications. There is theoretical benefit in the assessment of central aortic waveforms including the augmentation index, which is taken as a putative index of stiffness. Transfer functions may be used to reconstruct aortic from radial pressure waveforms; however, a single generalized transfer function may not be appropriate for all patients. We aimed to evaluate the technique in subjects with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Simultaneous invasive central aortic and noninvasive radial waveforms were acquired in 19 subjects with type 2 diabetes, and a diabetes-specific transfer function was derived. Similar data were acquired from 38 age- and sex-matched subjects without diabetes. Central waveforms were reconstructed using a generalized transfer function in all patients and the diabetes-specific transfer function in individuals with diabetes. RESULTS: There was no difference between groups in measured central pressures. The error in generalized transfer function-derived systolic pressure was greater in individuals with diabetes (6 +/- 7 mmHg) (mean +/- SD) than without diabetes (2 +/- 8 mmHg) (P<0.05). Errors in other parameters were no different. The diabetes-specific transfer function reduced the error in derived systolic pressure to 0 +/- 7 mmHg in individuals with diabetes--no different than that with the generalized transfer function in individuals without diabetes. The central augmentation index reconstructed by either transfer function was unrelated to that directly measured. CONCLUSIONS: A generalized transfer function is inappropriate for the derivation of central waveforms in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Errors in subjects with diabetes might be reduced with a diabetes-specific transfer function.
Authors: Rachel E Climie; Martin G Schultz; James W Fell; Lorena Romero; Petr Otahal; James E Sharman Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: D Tryfonopoulos; E Anastasiou; A Protogerou; T Papaioannou; K Lily; A Dagre; E Souvatzoglou; C Papamichael; M Alevizaki; J Lekakis Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Justin M S Lee; Cheerag Shirodaria; Clare E Jackson; Matthew D Robson; Charalambos Antoniades; Jane M Francis; Frank Wiesmann; Keith M Channon; Stefan Neubauer; Robin P Choudhury Journal: Diab Vasc Dis Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.291
Authors: Cornelis J Roos; Roxana Djaberi; Joanne D Schuijf; Eelco J de Koning; Ton J Rabelink; Jan W Smit; Alberto M Pereira; Imad Al Younis; Bernies van der Hiel; Arthur J Scholte; Jeroen J Bax; J Wouter Jukema Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-08-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: James A Revie; David J Stevenson; J Geoffrey Chase; Christopher E Hann; Bernard C Lambermont; Alexandre Ghuysen; Philippe Kolh; Philippe Morimont; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Jan Poleszczuk; Malgorzata Debowska; Wojciech Dabrowski; Alicja Wojcik-Zaluska; Wojciech Zaluska; Jacek Waniewski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: James A Revie; David Stevenson; J Geoffrey Chase; Chris J Pretty; Bernard C Lambermont; Alexandre Ghuysen; Philippe Kolh; Geoffrey M Shaw; Thomas Desaive Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2013-03-25 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Chloe M Park; Olga Korolkova; Justin E Davies; Kim H Parker; Jennifer H Siggers; Katherine March; Therese Tillin; Nish Chaturvedi; Alun D Hughes Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 4.844