BACKGROUND: The augmentation index (AI) obtained from applanation tonometry of the radial artery is technically the easiest and quickest of available methods for assessing arterial stiffness. We tested the hypothesis that the radial AI is associated with the extent of coronary artery calcium (CAC) as assessed by coronary computed tomography (CCT). METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 161 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing central hemodynamic measurements and CCT. Radial AI was recorded and was corrected in accordance with heart rate (radial AI@75). Thirty-seven patients had no CAC (CAC score = 0), 85 had low-grade CAC (CAC score = 1-399), and 39 had high-grade CAC (CAC score ≥400). Coronary risk factors, except for age and serum creatinine, were similar among the three groups. There were significant differences in brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p = 0.011) and radial AI@75 (%) (p = 0.006). Multivariate analysis showed that age (β = 0.27, p = 0.001), serum creatinine (β = 0.18, p = 0.03), and radial AI@75 (β = 0.24, p = 0.005) were significantly associated with ln (CAC score + 1), whereas brachial SBP was not. Additionally, serum creatinine (odds ratio: 11.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.46-112.0, p = 0.02) and radial AI@75 (per 10%) (odds ratio: 1.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-2.64, p = 0.002) were independent factors associated with high-grade CAC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the radial AI is better for estimating CAC than brachial SBP in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.
BACKGROUND: The augmentation index (AI) obtained from applanation tonometry of the radial artery is technically the easiest and quickest of available methods for assessing arterial stiffness. We tested the hypothesis that the radial AI is associated with the extent of coronary artery calcium (CAC) as assessed by coronary computed tomography (CCT). METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 161 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing central hemodynamic measurements and CCT. Radial AI was recorded and was corrected in accordance with heart rate (radial AI@75). Thirty-seven patients had no CAC (CAC score = 0), 85 had low-grade CAC (CAC score = 1-399), and 39 had high-grade CAC (CAC score ≥400). Coronary risk factors, except for age and serum creatinine, were similar among the three groups. There were significant differences in brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p = 0.011) and radial AI@75 (%) (p = 0.006). Multivariate analysis showed that age (β = 0.27, p = 0.001), serum creatinine (β = 0.18, p = 0.03), and radial AI@75 (β = 0.24, p = 0.005) were significantly associated with ln (CAC score + 1), whereas brachial SBP was not. Additionally, serum creatinine (odds ratio: 11.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.46-112.0, p = 0.02) and radial AI@75 (per 10%) (odds ratio: 1.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-2.64, p = 0.002) were independent factors associated with high-grade CAC. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the radial AI is better for estimating CAC than brachial SBP in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.