Bragina Anna, Rodionova Yulia, Druzhinina Natalia, Gamilov Timur, Udalova Ekaterina, Rogov Artem, Vasileva Lubov, Shikhmagomedov Rustam, Avdeenko Oksana, Kazadaeva Anna, Novikov Kirill, Podzolkov Valeriy
Department of Internal Medicine No. 2, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 19991 Moscow, Russia.
World-Class Research Center "Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare", Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 19991 Moscow, Russia.
J Clin Med Res. 2024 Sep;16(9):423-435. doi: 10.14740/jocmr5271. Epub 2024 Sep 12.
The high prevalence of traditional cardiovascular risk factors among the patients without cardiovascular disease (CVD) allows us to predict an increase in cardiovascular morbidity rate in the future. Arterial stiffness is one of the most important predictors and pathogenetic mechanisms of CVD development. The aim of our study was to evaluate the predictive differences of age-related and age-independent (universal) cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) reference values for detecting increased arterial stiffness in individuals without CVD.
The study included 600 patients (43% men and 57% women, mean age 36.0 ± 18.3 years). All the patients underwent anthropometric measurements with obesity markers evaluation, assessment of arterial stiffness by sphygmomanometry. To create predictive models, we used universal and age-related CAVI thresholds: ≥ 9.0 (CAVI) and CAVI according to the "Consensus of Russian experts on the evaluation of arterial stiffness in clinical practice".
In the < 50 years group, both the CAVI and CAVI models were significant (CAVI: b = 4.8, standard error b (st.err.b) = 0.27, P < 0.001; CAVI: b = 3.2, st.err.b = 1.6, P < 0.001). The CAVI model demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity (> 70%) compared to the CAVI model (sensitivity 62%, specificity 58%). In the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the CAVI model had a significantly higher area under the ROC curve (AUC) = 0.802 than the CAVI model: AUC = 0.674. In the ≥ 50 years group, both models were significant: CAVI (b = 2.6, st.err.b = 1.13, P < 0.001) and CAVI (b = 5.3, st.err.b = 0.94, P < 0.001). Both models demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity (> 70%). When ROC curves were analyzed for the CAVI model, the AUC value of 0.675 was significantly lower when compared to the CAVI model (AUC = 0.787, P = 0.031).
In the < 50 years group, the model based on age-specific CAVI thresholds has the higher predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity for identifying individuals with increased arterial stiffness. In contrast, in the ≥ 50 years group, a predictive model using a universal threshold value of CAVI has advantages.
在无心血管疾病(CVD)的患者中,传统心血管危险因素的高流行率使我们能够预测未来心血管发病率的增加。动脉僵硬度是CVD发展的最重要预测因素和发病机制之一。我们研究的目的是评估年龄相关和年龄无关(通用)的心踝血管指数(CAVI)参考值在检测无CVD个体动脉僵硬度增加方面的预测差异。
该研究纳入了600例患者(男性43%,女性57%,平均年龄36.0±18.3岁)。所有患者均接受了人体测量及肥胖标志物评估,并通过血压测量评估动脉僵硬度。为建立预测模型,我们使用了通用的和与年龄相关的CAVI阈值:≥9.0(CAVI)以及根据“俄罗斯专家关于临床实践中动脉僵硬度评估的共识”得出的CAVI。
在<50岁组中,CAVI和CAVI模型均具有显著性(CAVI:b = 4.8,标准误b(st.err.b)= 0.27,P < 0.001;CAVI:b = 3.2,st.err.b = 1.6,P < 0.001)。与CAVI模型相比,CAVI模型表现出更高的敏感性和特异性(>70%)(敏感性62%,特异性58%)。在受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析中,CAVI模型的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)= 0.802显著高于CAVI模型:AUC = 0.674。在≥50岁组中,两个模型均具有显著性:CAVI(b = 2.6,st.err.b = 1.13,P < 0.001)和CAVI(b = 5.3,st.err.b = 0.94,P < 0.001)。两个模型均表现出高敏感性和特异性(>70%)。对CAVI模型的ROC曲线进行分析时,其AUC值0.675与CAVI模型(AUC = 0.