From the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology, Center for Health & Bioresources, Vienna (B.H., S.W., C.C.M.).
Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, Cardiology Department, Wels, Austria (K.D., R.K.B., T.W.).
Hypertension. 2021 Feb;77(2):571-581. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.15336. Epub 2021 Jan 4.
Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) is directly related to arterial stiffness. Different methods for the determination of PWV coexist. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the prognostic value of PWV in high-risk patients with suspected coronary artery disease undergoing invasive angiography and to compare 3 different methods for assessing PWV. In 1040 patients, invasive PWV (iPWV) was measured during catheter pullback. Additionally, PWV was estimated with a model incorporating age, central systolic blood pressure, and pulse waveform characteristics obtained from noninvasive measurements (estimated PWV). As a third method, PWV was calculated with a formula solely based on age and blood pressure (formula-based PWV). Survival analysis was based on continuous PWV as well as using cutoff values. After a median follow-up duration of 1565 days, 24% of the patients reached the combined end point (cardiovascular events or mortality). Cox proportional hazard ratios per 1 SD were 1.35 for iPWV, 1.37 for estimated PWV, and 1.28 for formula-based PWV (<0.0001 for all 3 methods) in univariate analysis, remaining statistically significant after comprehensive multivariable adjustments. In a model including a modified risk score for coronary artery disease, iPWV and estimated PWV remained borderline significant. The net reclassification improvement was significant for iPWV (0.173), formula-based PWV (0.181), and estimated PWV (0.230). All 3 methods for the determination of PWV predicted cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. This indicates that iPWV as well as both noninvasive estimation methods are suitable for the assessment of arterial stiffness, bearing in mind their individual characteristics.
脉搏波速度(PWV)与动脉僵硬度直接相关。目前存在多种测量 PWV 的方法。本前瞻性研究旨在评估怀疑患有冠心病并接受有创血管造影术的高危患者的 PWV 预后价值,并比较 3 种不同的 PWV 评估方法。在 1040 例患者中,在导管回撤过程中测量有创 PWV(iPWV)。此外,通过将年龄、中心收缩压和从非侵入性测量中获得的脉搏波特征纳入模型来估算 PWV(估算 PWV)。作为第三种方法,根据年龄和血压的公式计算 PWV(基于公式的 PWV)。生存分析基于连续 PWV 以及使用截止值。在中位数随访 1565 天之后,24%的患者达到了联合终点(心血管事件或死亡率)。在单变量分析中,每 1 SD 的 Cox 比例风险比分别为 iPWV 为 1.35、估算 PWV 为 1.37、基于公式的 PWV 为 1.28(所有 3 种方法均<0.0001),在全面多变量调整后仍具有统计学意义。在包含改良冠心病风险评分的模型中,iPWV 和估算 PWV 仍具有边缘显著性。iPWV(0.173)、基于公式的 PWV(0.181)和估算 PWV(0.230)的净重新分类改善均具有统计学意义。怀疑患有冠心病的患者中,所有 3 种 PWV 测量方法均预测心血管事件和死亡率。这表明 iPWV 以及两种非侵入性估算方法都适用于动脉僵硬度的评估,需要考虑其各自的特点。