BACKGROUND: Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) is the most established index of arterial stiffness. Yet there is no consensus on the methodology in regard to the arterial path length measurements conducted on the body surface. Currently, it is not known to what extent the differences in the arterial path length measurements affect absolute PWV values. METHODS: Two hundred fifty apparently healthy adults (127 men and 123 women, 19-79 years) were studied. Carotid-femoral PWV was calculated using (1) the straight distance between carotid and femoral sites (PWV(car-fem)), (2) the straight distance between suprasternal notch and femoral site minus carotid arterial length (PWV((ssn-fem)-(ssn-car))), (3) the straight distance between carotid and femoral sites minus carotid arterial length (PWV((car-fem)-(ssn-car))), and (4) the combined distance from carotid site to the umbilicus and from the umbilicus to femoral site minus carotid arterial length (PWV((ssn-umb-fem)-(ssn-car))). RESULTS: All the calculated PWV were significantly correlated with each other (r=0.966-0.995). PWV accounting for carotid arterial length were 16-31% lower than PWV(car-fem). PWV(car-fem) value of 12 m/sec corresponded to 8.3 m/sec for PWV((ssn-fem)-(ssn-car)), 10.0 m/sec for PWV((car-fem)-(ssn-car)), and 8.9 m/sec for PWV((ssn-umb-fem)-(ssn-car)). CONCLUSION: Different body surface measurements used to estimate arterial path length would produce substantial variations in absolute PWV values.
BACKGROUND: Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) is the most established index of arterial stiffness. Yet there is no consensus on the methodology in regard to the arterial path length measurements conducted on the body surface. Currently, it is not known to what extent the differences in the arterial path length measurements affect absolute PWV values. METHODS: Two hundred fifty apparently healthy adults (127 men and 123 women, 19-79 years) were studied. Carotid-femoral PWV was calculated using (1) the straight distance between carotid and femoral sites (PWV(car-fem)), (2) the straight distance between suprasternal notch and femoral site minus carotid arterial length (PWV((ssn-fem)-(ssn-car))), (3) the straight distance between carotid and femoral sites minus carotid arterial length (PWV((car-fem)-(ssn-car))), and (4) the combined distance from carotid site to the umbilicus and from the umbilicus to femoral site minus carotid arterial length (PWV((ssn-umb-fem)-(ssn-car))). RESULTS: All the calculated PWV were significantly correlated with each other (r=0.966-0.995). PWV accounting for carotid arterial length were 16-31% lower than PWV(car-fem). PWV(car-fem) value of 12 m/sec corresponded to 8.3 m/sec for PWV((ssn-fem)-(ssn-car)), 10.0 m/sec for PWV((car-fem)-(ssn-car)), and 8.9 m/sec for PWV((ssn-umb-fem)-(ssn-car)). CONCLUSION: Different body surface measurements used to estimate arterial path length would produce substantial variations in absolute PWV values.
Authors: Carmel M McEniery; Ian R Hall; Ahmad Qasem; Ian B Wilkinson; John R Cockcroft Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-10-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Renata Cifkova; Robert Fagard; Giuseppe Germano; Guido Grassi; Anthony M Heagerty; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stephane Laurent; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Luis Ruilope; Andrzej Rynkiewicz; Roland E Schmieder; Harry A J Struijker Boudier; Alberto Zanchetti; Alec Vahanian; John Camm; Raffaele De Caterina; Veronica Dean; Kenneth Dickstein; Gerasimos Filippatos; Christian Funck-Brentano; Irene Hellemans; Steen Dalby Kristensen; Keith McGregor; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Michal Tendera; Petr Widimsky; José Luis Zamorano; Serap Erdine; Wolfgang Kiowski; Enrico Agabiti-Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Lars H Lindholm; Margus Viigimaa; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Enrico Agabiti-Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Vicente Bertomeu; Denis Clement; Serap Erdine; Csaba Farsang; Dan Gaita; Gregory Lip; Jean-Michel Mallion; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Eoin O'Brien; Piotr Ponikowski; Josep Redon; Frank Ruschitzka; Juan Tamargo; Pieter van Zwieten; Bernard Waeber; Bryan Williams Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Thomas Weber; Marcus Ammer; Martin Rammer; Audrey Adji; Michael F O'Rourke; Siegfried Wassertheurer; Stefan Rosenkranz; Bernd Eber Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: K Sutton-Tyrrell; R H Mackey; R Holubkov; P V Vaitkevicius; H A Spurgeon; E G Lakatta Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Gary F Mitchell; Helen Parise; Emelia J Benjamin; Martin G Larson; Michelle J Keyes; Joseph A Vita; Ramachandran S Vasan; Daniel Levy Journal: Hypertension Date: 2004-05-03 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Tommy Y Cai; Alice Meroni; Hasthi Dissanayake; Melinda Phang; Alberto Avolio; David S Celermajer; Mark Butlin; Michael R Skilton; Ahmad Qasem Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Sacha D Nandlall; Monica P Goldklang; Aubrey Kalashian; Nida A Dangra; Jeanine M D'Armiento; Elisa E Konofagou Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Mohammed Alghamdi; Astrid M De Souza; Colin T White; M Terri Potts; Bradley A Warady; Susan L Furth; Thomas R Kimball; James E Potts; George G S Sandor Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 1.655