PURPOSE: The arteriole to venule ratio (AVR) is widely used in studies of the associations of retinal microvascular disease with systemic and ocular outcomes. This is a discussion of the limitations of AVR; a comparison of its predictive information with that of its components, arteriolar and venular caliber; and a description of a suggested alternative method of modeling arteriolar and venular calibers directly. METHODS: Data from the population-based Blue Mountains Eye Study were used to compare the predictive information in models using AVR with models using arteriolar and venular calibers directly. Determination was made of how the apparent relationship between vessel caliber and two systemic outcomes (blood pressure [BP] and white blood cell count [WBC]) was influenced by the choice of regression model. These findings were interpreted with reference to the known biological relationship among vessel calibers, BP, and WBC. RESULTS: Models using arteriolar and venular calibers directly had more predictive information than models using AVR. The apparent relationship of vessel caliber to BP and WBC differed substantially, depending on the model chosen. For example, after adjustment for age, sex, and other covariates, decreasing venular caliber was associated with higher systolic BP when modeled separately, but was associated with lower systolic BP when modeled simultaneously with arteriolar caliber. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest AVR provides less information with regards to predicting systemic outcomes than its two components. Modeling arteriolar and venular calibers separately could be biased by confounding, while modeling both simultaneously appears to provide unbiased, biologically plausible results. The use of this approach is recommended in future research relating retinal vascular caliber to systemic or ocular outcomes.
PURPOSE: The arteriole to venule ratio (AVR) is widely used in studies of the associations of retinal microvascular disease with systemic and ocular outcomes. This is a discussion of the limitations of AVR; a comparison of its predictive information with that of its components, arteriolar and venular caliber; and a description of a suggested alternative method of modeling arteriolar and venular calibers directly. METHODS: Data from the population-based Blue Mountains Eye Study were used to compare the predictive information in models using AVR with models using arteriolar and venular calibers directly. Determination was made of how the apparent relationship between vessel caliber and two systemic outcomes (blood pressure [BP] and white blood cell count [WBC]) was influenced by the choice of regression model. These findings were interpreted with reference to the known biological relationship among vessel calibers, BP, and WBC. RESULTS: Models using arteriolar and venular calibers directly had more predictive information than models using AVR. The apparent relationship of vessel caliber to BP and WBC differed substantially, depending on the model chosen. For example, after adjustment for age, sex, and other covariates, decreasing venular caliber was associated with higher systolic BP when modeled separately, but was associated with lower systolic BP when modeled simultaneously with arteriolar caliber. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest AVR provides less information with regards to predicting systemic outcomes than its two components. Modeling arteriolar and venular calibers separately could be biased by confounding, while modeling both simultaneously appears to provide unbiased, biologically plausible results. The use of this approach is recommended in future research relating retinal vascular caliber to systemic or ocular outcomes.
Authors: Samantha J Fahy; Cong Sun; Gu Zhu; Paul R Healey; Tim D Spector; Nicolas G Martin; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong; David A Mackey; Christopher J Hammond; Toby Andrew Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Thanh T Nguyen; F M Amirul Islam; H M Omar Farouque; Ronald Klein; Barbara E K Klein; Mary Frances Cotch; David M Herrington; Tien Yin Wong Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-05-27 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: F J de Jong; E M C Schrijvers; M K Ikram; P J Koudstaal; P T V M de Jong; A Hofman; J R Vingerling; M M B Breteler Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Merwyn Chew; Jing Xie; Ronald Klein; Barbara Klein; Mary Frances Cotch; Susan Redline; Tien Yin Wong; Ning Cheung Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Sapna Gangaputra; Partho S Kalyani; Amani A Fawzi; Mark L Van Natta; Larry D Hubbard; Ronald P Danis; Jennifer E Thorne; Gary N Holland Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2011-10-22 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Jie Ding; Khin Lay Wai; Kevin McGeechan; M Kamran Ikram; Ryo Kawasaki; Jing Xie; Ronald Klein; Barbara B K Klein; Mary Frances Cotch; Jie Jin Wang; Paul Mitchell; Jonathan E Shaw; Kayama Takamasa; A Richey Sharrett; Tien Y Wong Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Gerald Liew; A Richey Sharrett; Jie Jin Wang; Ronald Klein; Barbara E K Klein; Paul Mitchell; Tien Y Wong Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2008-10
Authors: Daniel W Belsky; Avshalom Caspi; Renate Houts; Harvey J Cohen; David L Corcoran; Andrea Danese; HonaLee Harrington; Salomon Israel; Morgan E Levine; Jonathan D Schaefer; Karen Sugden; Ben Williams; Anatoli I Yashin; Richie Poulton; Terrie E Moffitt Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 11.205