Suppr超能文献

心房颤动期间主动脉僵硬度的评估:解决方案与注意事项。

Assessment of aortic stiffness during atrial fibrillation: solutions and considerations.

作者信息

Lundwall Kristina, Al Nouh Maria, Kahan Thomas, Spaak Jonas

机构信息

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Aug 29;11:1449168. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449168. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Methods to assess aortic stiffness are not validated during ongoing atrial fibrillation (AF) We aimed to determine whether aortic stiffness can be assessed reliably in patients during AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Carotid-to-femoral and aortic pulse wave velocity (cf/aoPWV), central blood pressure (BP), and augmentation index (AIx) were assessed by a two-site applanation method and a one-site cuff-based oscillometric method in 40 patients with persistent AF and repeated after cardioversion to SR. Mean age was 63 ± 8 years, 73% male, 50% hypertensive. For the two-site method, cfPWV values were slightly higher in AF than in SR (9.3 ± 1.8 vs. 8.5 ± 1.6 m/s,  < 0.001), whereas the one-site method provided similar values in AF and SR (10.1 ± 1.5 vs. 10.0 ± 1.8 m/s).The variability indices from the device was higher in AF for the two-site method (SD 2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 0.5 m/s,  < 0.001) but similar in AF and SR with the one-site method (SD 0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 m/s). Both methods yielded higher central BP (+4.8/+6.6 and +4.1/+5.7 mm Hg) and lower Aix (-6.8 and -9.1 mm Hg) in AF.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic stiffness can be assessed during AF. Both methods yielded higher central BP and lower AIx in AF, but similar results for PWV in AF and SR, also when adjusted for BP changes. The two-site method showed high variability necessitating repeated measurements. The one-site method showed lower device-calculated variability and needed fewer repeated measurements.

摘要

背景

在持续性心房颤动(AF)期间,评估主动脉僵硬度的方法尚未得到验证。我们旨在确定在AF患者中是否能够可靠地评估主动脉僵硬度。

方法与结果

采用两点压平法和单点袖带示波法,对40例持续性AF患者进行颈股动脉和主动脉脉搏波速度(cf/aoPWV)、中心血压(BP)和增强指数(AIx)评估,并在转为窦性心律(SR)后重复评估。平均年龄为63±8岁,男性占73%,高血压患者占50%。对于两点法,AF时cfPWV值略高于SR(9.3±1.8 vs. 8.5±1.6 m/s,P<0.001),而单点法在AF和SR时提供的数值相似(10.1±1.5 vs. 10.0±1.8 m/s)。两点法中,AF时设备的变异指数更高(标准差2.5±1.7 vs. 1.0±0.5 m/s,P<0.001),但单点法在AF和SR时相似(标准差0.7±0.2 vs. 0.6±0.2 m/s)。两种方法在AF时均产生较高的中心血压(分别升高4.8/6.6和4.1/5.7 mmHg)和较低的Aix(分别降低6.8和9.1 mmHg)。

结论

AF期间可以评估主动脉僵硬度。两种方法在AF时均产生较高的中心血压和较低的AIx,但AF和SR时PWV的结果相似,即使对血压变化进行校正后也是如此。两点法显示出高变异性,需要重复测量。单点法显示出较低的设备计算变异性,且需要较少的重复测量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2709/11417614/397c179ed3ae/fcvm-11-1449168-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验