Differences in pulse wave velocity obtained by compared devices resulted primarily from using various methods for measuring traveled distance. It appears reasonable to establish uniform principles for the measurement of traveled distance. Because a large number of prognosis/survival studies used direct distance between carotid and femoral sites of pulse wave recording, this distance should be mostly recommended.

This review summarizes several scientific contributions at the recent Satellite Symposium of the European Society of Hypertension, held in Milan, Italy. Arterial stiffening and its hemodynamic consequences can be easily and reliably measured using a range of noninvasive techniques. However, like blood pressure (BP) measurements, arterial stiffness should be measured carefully under standardized patient conditions. Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity has been proposed as the gold standard for arterial stiffness measurement and is a well recognized predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcome. Systolic BP and pulse pressure in the ascending aorta may be lower than pressures measured in the upper limb, especially in young individuals. A number of studies suggest closer correlation of end-organ damage with central BP than with peripheral BP, and central BP may provide additional prognostic information regarding cardiovascular risk. Moreover, BP-lowering drugs can have differential effects on central aortic pressures and hemodynamics compared with brachial BP. This may explain the greater beneficial effect provided by newer antihypertensive drugs beyond peripheral BP reduction. Although many methodological problems still hinder the wide clinical application of parameters of arterial stiffness, these will likely contribute to cardiovascular assessment and management in future clinical practice. Each of the abovementioned parameters reflects a different characteristic of the atherosclerotic process, involving functional and/or morphological changes in the vessel wall. Therefore, acquiring simultaneous measurements of different parameters of vascular function and structure could theoretically enhance the power to improve risk stratification. Continuous technological effort is necessary to refine our methods of investigation in order to detect early arterial abnormalities. Arterial stiffness and its consequences represent the great challenge of the twenty-first century for affluent countries, and “de-stiffening” will be the goal of the next decades.

Pending validation in prospective outcome-based studies 70 mm Hg for PP(p), 50 mm Hg for PP(c), 100% for AI(p), 40% for AI(c), and 8.0 m/sec might be considered as preliminary thresholds to diagnose increased arterial stiffness in young adult subjects of African descent.

No abstract

Background: Whether cardiovascular risk is more tightly associated with central (cSBP) than brachial (bSBP) systolic pressure remains debated, because of their close correlation and uncertain thresholds to differentiate cSBP into normotension versus hypertension. Methods: In a person-level meta-analysis of the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (n=5576; 54.1% women; mean age 54.2 years), outcome-driven thresholds for cSBP were determined and whether the cross-classification of cSBP and bSBP improved risk stratification was explored. cSBP was tonometrically estimated from the radial pulse wave using SphygmoCor software. Results: Over 4.1 years (median), 255 composite cardiovascular end points occurred. In multivariable bootstrapped analyses, cSBP thresholds (in mm Hg) of 110.5 (95% CI, 109.1–111.8), 120.2 (119.4–121.0), 130.0 (129.6–130.3), and 149.5 (148.4–150.5) generated 5-year cardiovascular risks equivalent to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association bSBP thresholds of 120, 130, 140, and 160. Applying 120/130 mm Hg as cSBP/bSBP thresholds delineated concordant central and brachial normotension (43.1%) and hypertension (48.2%) versus isolated brachial hypertension (5.0%) and isolated central hypertension (3.7%). With concordant normotension as reference, the multivariable hazard ratios for the cardiovascular end point were 1.30 (95% CI, 0.58–2.94) for isolated brachial hypertension, 2.28 (1.21–4.30) for isolated central hypertension, and 2.02 (1.41–2.91) for concordant hypertension. The increased cardiovascular risk associated with isolated central and concordant hypertension was paralleled by cerebrovascular end points with hazard ratios of 3.71 (1.37–10.06) and 2.60 (1.35–5.00), respectively. Conclusions: Irrespective of the brachial blood pressure status, central hypertension increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk indicating the importance of controlling central hypertension.

Pulsatile blood pressure (BP) confers cardiovascular risk. Whether associations of cardiovascular end points are tighter for central systolic BP (cSBP) than peripheral systolic BP (pSBP) or central pulse pressure (cPP) than peripheral pulse pressure (pPP) is uncertain. Among 5608 participants (54.1% women; mean age, 54.2 years) enrolled in nine studies, median follow-up was 4.1 years. cSBP and cPP, estimated tonometrically from the radial waveform, averaged 123.7 and 42.5 mm Hg, and pSBP and pPP 134.1 and 53.9 mm Hg. The primary composite cardiovascular end point occurred in 255 participants (4.5%). Across fourths of the cPP distribution, rates increased exponentially (4.1, 5.0, 7.3, and 22.0 per 1000 person-years) with comparable estimates for cSBP, pSBP, and pPP. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios, expressing the risk per 1-SD increment in BP, were 1.50 (95% CI, 1.33–1.70) for cSBP, 1.36 (95% CI, 1.19–1.54) for cPP, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.33–1.67) for pSBP, and 1.34 (95% CI, 1.19–1.51) for pPP ( P <0.001). Further adjustment of cSBP and cPP, respectively, for pSBP and pPP, and vice versa, removed the significance of all hazard ratios. Adding cSBP, cPP, pSBP, pPP to a base model including covariables increased the model fit ( P <0.001) with generalized R 2 increments ranging from 0.37% to 0.74% but adding a second BP to a model including already one did not. Analyses of the secondary end points, including total mortality (204 deaths), coronary end points (109) and strokes (89), and various sensitivity analyses produced consistent results. In conclusion, associations of the primary and secondary end points with SBP and pulse pressure were not stronger if BP was measured centrally compared with peripherally.

Large-artery properties are altered in OFF/HT compared with OFF/NT. The findings from this cross-sectional study suggest that the alterations in arterial function in subjects with a family history of hypertension are determined mainly by an increased BP and age-related hemodynamic changes.

Our study underscored the importance of arterial characteristics as a mediator of LV systolic and diastolic dysfunction. We demonstrated an age-dependent relationship between radial strain and indexes of arterial stiffness.