No abstract

Stiffness of elastic arteries like the aorta predicts cardiovascular risk. By directly reflecting arterial stiffness, having the best predictive value for cardiovascular outcome and the ease of its measurement, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity is now considered the gold standard for arterial stiffness assessment in daily practice. Many different measurement procedures have been proposed. Therefore, standardization of its measurement is urgently needed, particularly regarding the distance measurement. This consensus document advises on the measurement procedures in general and provides arguments for the use of 80% of the direct carotid-femoral distance as the most accurate distance estimate. It also advises the use of 10 m/s as new cut-off value for carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity.

No abstract

Background-Increased arterial stiffness, determined invasively, has been shown to predict a higher risk of coronary atherosclerosis. However, invasive techniques are of limited value for screening and risk stratification in larger patient groups. Methods and Results-We prospectively enrolled 465 consecutive, symptomatic men undergoing coronary angiography for the assessment of suspected coronary artery disease. Arterial stiffness and wave reflections were quantified noninvasively using applanation tonometry of the radial artery with a validated transfer function to generate the corresponding ascending aortic pressure waveform. Augmented pressure (AP) was defined as the difference between the second and the first systolic peak, and augmentation index (AIx) was AP expressed as a percentage of the pulse pressure.In univariate analysis, a higher AIx was associated with an increased risk for coronary artery disease (OR, 4.06 for the difference between the first and the fourth quartile [1.72 to 9.57; PϽ0.01]). In multivariate analysis, after controlling for age, height, presence of hypertension, HDL cholesterol, and medications, the association with coronary artery disease risk remained significant (OR, 6.91; PϽ0.05). The results were exclusively driven by an increase in risk with premature vessel stiffening in the younger patient group (up to 60 years of age), with an unadjusted OR between AIx quartiles I and IV of 8.25 (PϽ0.01) and a multiple-adjusted OR between these quartiles of 16.81 (PϽ0.05). Conclusions-AIx and AP, noninvasively determined manifestations of arterial stiffening and increased wave reflections, are strong, independent risk markers for premature coronary artery disease.

Medtronic.

While risk scores are invaluable tools for adapted preventive strategies, a significant gap exists between predicted and actual event rates. Additional tools to further stratify the risk of patients at an individual level are biomarkers. A surrogate endpoint is a biomarker that is intended as a substitute for a clinical endpoint. In order to be considered as a surrogate endpoint of cardiovascular events, a biomarker should satisfy several criteria, such as proof of concept, prospective validation, incremental value, clinical utility, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, ease of use, methodological consensus, and reference values. We scrutinized the role of peripheral (i.e. not related to coronary circulation) noninvasive vascular biomarkers for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention. Most of the biomarkers examined fit within the concept of early vascular aging. Biomarkers that fulfill most of the criteria and, therefore, are close to being considered a clinical surrogate endpoint are carotid ultrasonography, ankle-brachial index and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity; biomarkers that fulfill some, but not all of the criteria are brachial ankle pulse wave velocity, central haemodynamics/wave reflections and C-reactive protein; biomarkers that do no not at present fulfill essential criteria are flow-mediated dilation, endothelial peripheral arterial tonometry, oxidized LDL and dysfunctional HDL. Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether a specific vascular biomarker is overly superior. A prospective study in which all vascular biomarkers are measured is still lacking. In selected cases, the combined assessment of more than one biomarker may be required.

No abstract

Abstract-The prognostic value of central systolic blood pressure has been established recently. At present, its noninvasive assessment is limited by the need of dedicated equipment and trained operators. Moreover, ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring of central pressures are not feasible. An algorithm enabling conventional automated oscillometric blood pressure monitors to assess central systolic pressure could be of value. We compared central systolic pressure, calculated with a transfer-function like method (ARCSolver algorithm), using waveforms recorded with a regular oscillometric cuff suitable for ambulatory measurements, with simultaneous high-fidelity invasive recordings, and with noninvasive estimations using a validated device, operating with radial tonometry and a generalized transfer function. Both studies revealed a good agreement between the oscillometric cuff-based central systolic pressure and the comparator. In the invasive study, composed of 30 patients, mean difference between oscillometric cuff/ARCSolverbased and invasive central systolic pressures was 3.0 mm Hg (SD: 6.0 mm Hg) with invasive calibration of brachial waveforms and Ϫ3.0 mm Hg (SD: 9.5 mm Hg) with noninvasive calibration of brachial waveforms. Results were similar when the reference method (radial tonometry/transfer function) was compared with invasive measurements. In the noninvasive study, composed of 111 patients, mean difference between oscillometric cuff/ARCSolver-derived and radial tonometry/transfer function-derived central systolic pressures was Ϫ0.5 mm Hg (SD: 4.7 mm Hg). In conclusion, a novel transfer function-like algorithm, using brachial cuff-based waveform recordings, is suited to provide a realistic estimation of central systolic pressure. A lthough mean blood pressure (MBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) are relatively constant in the conduit arteries, it has been known for decades that systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure are higher in the peripheral than in the central arteries. 1 This so-called SBP or pulse pressure amplification is the consequence of the progressive reduction of diameter and increase in stiffness from the proximal to the distal arterial vessels and mostly of the modification in the transit of wave reflections. 2 It seems obvious that central pressures are more relevant than peripheral pressures for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease: it is central SBP (cSBP) against the heart ejects (afterload), and it is central pulse pressure that distends the large elastic arteries. 3 Indeed, cSBP and central pulse pressure have been associated more closely with left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid atherosclerosis as markers of hypertensive end-organ damage than brachial pressures in different populations. 4 -6