OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether the carotid/brachial (C/B) ratio is an independent predictor of cardiovascular (CV) risk. BACKGROUND: Brachial and carotid pulse pressure (PP) are independent predictors of CV risk, mainly in elderly patients. Because PP is physiologically lower at the brachial than at the carotid arterial site, PP amplification is represented by the C/B ratio and could independently predict CV risk. METHODS: In a Paris population (n = 834), brachial and carotid PP were measured from sphygmomanometry and pulse wave analysis. With stepwise multiple regression, carotid PP was calculated from a nomogram including age, sex, body height, brachial PP, and plasma glucose. This model was applied to 125,151 subjects, followed for 12 years, during which 3,997 deaths occurred (735 of CV origin). With Cox regression analysis, multi-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for 1 SD increase of brachial PP, calculated carotid PP, and C/B ratio. RESULTS: Brachial PP was significantly associated with both CV and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13 to 1.19, and HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.17, respectively). Calculated carotid PP predicted a similar risk (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.28, and HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.25, respectively). Finally, the C/B ratio was a strong risk predictor (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.32, and HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.73, respectively). Addition of drug treatment and other confounding variables did not statistically modify the results. CONCLUSIONS: Brachial PP, calculated carotid PP, and C/B PP amplification all predict CV mortality. In contrast to brachial and carotid PP, the C/B ratio is less dependent on blood pressure calibration and thus can be directly applicable to large population studies. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether the carotid/brachial (C/B) ratio is an independent predictor of cardiovascular (CV) risk. BACKGROUND: Brachial and carotid pulse pressure (PP) are independent predictors of CV risk, mainly in elderly patients. Because PP is physiologically lower at the brachial than at the carotid arterial site, PP amplification is represented by the C/B ratio and could independently predict CV risk. METHODS: In a Paris population (n = 834), brachial and carotid PP were measured from sphygmomanometry and pulse wave analysis. With stepwise multiple regression, carotid PP was calculated from a nomogram including age, sex, body height, brachial PP, and plasma glucose. This model was applied to 125,151 subjects, followed for 12 years, during which 3,997 deaths occurred (735 of CV origin). With Cox regression analysis, multi-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for 1 SD increase of brachial PP, calculated carotid PP, and C/B ratio. RESULTS: Brachial PP was significantly associated with both CV and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13 to 1.19, and HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.17, respectively). Calculated carotid PP predicted a similar risk (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.28, and HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.25, respectively). Finally, the C/B ratio was a strong risk predictor (HR: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.32, and HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.73, respectively). Addition of drug treatment and other confounding variables did not statistically modify the results. CONCLUSIONS: Brachial PP, calculated carotid PP, and C/B PP amplification all predict CV mortality. In contrast to brachial and carotid PP, the C/B ratio is less dependent on blood pressure calibration and thus can be directly applicable to large population studies. Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: M D Walker; T Rundek; S Homma; M DiTullio; S Iwata; J A Lee; J Choi; R Liu; C Zhang; D J McMahon; R L Sacco; S J Silverberg Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 6.664
Authors: Kevin S Heffernan; Eshan A Patvardhan; Navin K Kapur; Richard H Karas; Jeffrey T Kuvin Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-12-03 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: D Vrachatis; T G Papaioannou; A Konstantopoulou; E G Nasothimiou; S Millasseau; J Blacher; M E Safar; P P Sfikakis; G S Stergiou; A D Protogerou Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: L Joly; D Mandry; A Verger; C Labat; G Watfa; V Roux; G Karcher; P-Y Marie; A Benetos Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 4.075