Department of Exercise and Sport Science.
Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine.
J Hypertens. 2020 Sep;38(9):1786-1793. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002449.
Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) is widely used in epidemiological studies to assess central arterial stiffness. However, despite being superior to traditional risk factors in predicting cardiovascular outcomes, cfPWV is not routinely used in clinical practice. cfPWV assessments require applanation of the carotid artery, which can be cumbersome, and individual-level factors, including carotid artery plaque, may confound the measurements. Heart-femoral PWV (hfPWV) may be a suitable alternative measure of central arterial stiffness.
The aim of this study was to estimate the strength of the agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV.
We evaluated 4133 older-aged [75.2 (5.0) years] African-American and white adults in the community-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. cfPWV and hfPWV were measured using an automated cardiovascular screening device. Agreement between the two measurements was determined using Pearson's correlation coefficient (r), standard error of estimate (SEE) and Bland-Altman analysis.
There was a strong (r > 0.7) agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV (r = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.82-0.84). Although the mean cfPWV [11.5 m/s (SD: 3.0)] and hfPWV [11.5 m/s (SD: 2.3)] were comparable, the SEE was 1.7 m/s. Inspection of the Bland-Altman plot revealed greater variability and bias for higher PWV values, with higher PWV further away from the regression line.
Findings suggest good agreement between hfPWV and cfPWV. hfPWV is a simpler alternative to cfPWV that is less likely to be confounded by individual-level factors. Considering the greater variability for higher PWV values, further work is warranted to determine the importance of local artery mechanics to both measures.
颈股脉搏波速度（cfPWV）广泛用于评估中心动脉僵硬度的流行病学研究中。然而，尽管 cfPWV 在预测心血管结局方面优于传统危险因素，但它并未在临床实践中常规使用。cfPWV 评估需要对颈动脉进行平板压，这可能很麻烦，并且个体因素，包括颈动脉斑块，可能会干扰测量结果。心股脉搏波速度（hfPWV）可能是中心动脉僵硬度的一种合适替代测量方法。
本研究旨在估计 hfPWV 与 cfPWV 之间的一致性强度。
我们评估了社区动脉粥样硬化风险研究（ARIC）中 4133 名年龄较大的（75.2（5.0）岁）非裔美国人和白人成年人。cfPWV 和 hfPWV 使用自动化心血管筛查设备进行测量。使用 Pearson 相关系数（r）、估计标准误差（SEE）和 Bland-Altman 分析来确定两种测量方法之间的一致性。
hfPWV 与 cfPWV 之间存在较强的一致性（r>0.7）（r=0.83，95%CI：0.82-0.84）。尽管 cfPWV 的平均值[11.5 m/s（SD：3.0）]和 hfPWV 的平均值[11.5 m/s（SD：2.3）]相当，但 SEE 为 1.7 m/s。Bland-Altman 图的检查显示，对于更高的 PWV 值，存在更大的变异性和偏差，并且更高的 PWV 离回归线更远。
研究结果表明 hfPWV 与 cfPWV 之间存在良好的一致性。hfPWV 是 cfPWV 的一种更简单的替代方法，不太可能受到个体水平因素的干扰。考虑到更高 PWV 值的变异性更大，有必要进一步研究局部动脉力学对这两种测量方法的重要性。
