Lee Chan Joo, Yoon Minjae, Ha Jaehyung, Oh Jaewon, Park Sungha, Lee Sang-Hak, Kang Seok-Min
Division of Cardiology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Nov 15;8:782849. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2021.782849. eCollection 2021.
Study findings of the relationship of each arterial stiffness index with incident heart failure (HF) are conflicting. We aimed to compare the association between the indices of arterial stiffness and the risk of HF. We analysed 3,034 patients from a prospective cohort that enrolled patients with high cardiovascular risk. They underwent brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV), brachial pulse pressure (PP), carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), and central PP measurements. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years (interquartile range, 3.4-5.8 years), 65 HF events occurred. The incidence rate of HF was 4.7 per 1,000 person-years [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.7-6.0]. There was no difference in baPWV in those with and without HF events (1,561 ± 401 and 1,520 ± 321 cm/s, respectively, = 0.415); however, there was a significant difference in brachial PP (63.2 ± 16.9 vs. 52.3 ± 11.5 mmHg, < 0.001), cfPWV (11.0 ± 3.1 vs. 9.4 ± 2.4 m/s, < 0.001) and central PP (56.6 ± 19.9 vs. 42.9 ± 13.8 mmHg, < 0.001). In the multivariable-adjusted model, brachial PP [hazards ratio (HR) per standard deviation unit (SDU), 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19-1.84, < 0.001], cfPWV (HR per SDU, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02-1.63, = 0.032) and central PP (HR per SDU, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.17-1.78; < 0.001) were associated with incident HF, but baPWV was not (HR per SDU, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.10; = 0.198). In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) of brachial PP ( < 0.001), cfPWV ( = 0.003) or central PP ( = 0.001) was larger than that of baPWV, and there was no difference in the AUCs of brachial PP, cfPWV and central PP. Among arterial stiffness indices, brachial PWV was less associated with the risk of heart failure, and brachial PP and measures representing central hemodynamics were highly associated with incident HF.
关于每种动脉僵硬度指数与新发心力衰竭(HF)之间关系的研究结果相互矛盾。我们旨在比较动脉僵硬度指数与HF风险之间的关联。我们分析了来自一个前瞻性队列的3034名患者,该队列纳入了具有高心血管风险的患者。他们接受了肱踝脉搏波速度(baPWV)、肱动脉脉压(PP)、颈股脉搏波速度(cfPWV)和中心PP测量。在中位随访4.7年(四分位间距,3.4 - 5.8年)期间,发生了65例HF事件。HF的发病率为每1000人年4.7例[95%置信区间(CI),3.7 - 6.0]。发生和未发生HF事件的患者在baPWV方面无差异(分别为1561±401和1520±321 cm/s,P = 0.415);然而,肱动脉PP(63.2±16.9 vs. 52.3±11.5 mmHg,P < 0.001)、cfPWV(11.0±3.1 vs. 9.4±2.4 m/s,P < 0.001)和中心PP(56.6±19.9 vs. 42.9±13.8 mmHg,P < 0.001)存在显著差异。在多变量调整模型中,肱动脉PP[每标准差单位(SDU)的风险比(HR),1.48;95%CI,1.19 - 1.84,P < 0.001]、cfPWV(每SDU的HR,1.29;95%CI,1.02 - 1.63,P = 0.032)和中心PP(每SDU的HR,1.44;95%CI,1.17 - 1.78;P < 0.001)与新发HF相关,但baPWV不相关(每SDU的HR,0.83;95%CI,0.63 - 1.10;P = 0.198)。在受试者工作特征分析中,肱动脉PP(P < 0.001)、cfPWV(P = 0.003)或中心PP(P = 0.001)的曲线下面积(AUC)大于baPWV,并且肱动脉PP、cfPWV和中心PP的AUC之间无差异。在动脉僵硬度指数中,肱动脉脉搏波速度与心力衰竭风险的关联较小,而肱动脉PP和代表中心血流动力学的指标与新发HF高度相关。