2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.artres.2010.01.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The assessment of carotid–femoral distance for aortic pulse wave velocity: Should it be estimated from body height?☆

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Weber et al 6 produced a calculation for distance being equal to the (height/4+7.28) from a population of 135 being investigated for coronary artery disease, but, however, used the distance from the ascending aorta to the aortic bifurcation as the comparator which is not representative of the path traveled by the pulse wave between the carotid and femoral artery. Filipovsky et al 18 derived the calculation (height×0.29) in a population of 596 individuals predominantly free from cardiovascular disease but used an externally measured distance as the gold standard with all the aforementioned weaknesses this entails. Both techniques were examined by Huybrechts et al 4 in a population of 98 healthy men and women, which found that the Weber calculation was accurate but less so than a direct distance with a modifier of 0.8 and the Filipovsky calculation to be highly inaccurate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Weber et al 6 produced a calculation for distance being equal to the (height/4+7.28) from a population of 135 being investigated for coronary artery disease, but, however, used the distance from the ascending aorta to the aortic bifurcation as the comparator which is not representative of the path traveled by the pulse wave between the carotid and femoral artery. Filipovsky et al 18 derived the calculation (height×0.29) in a population of 596 individuals predominantly free from cardiovascular disease but used an externally measured distance as the gold standard with all the aforementioned weaknesses this entails. Both techniques were examined by Huybrechts et al 4 in a population of 98 healthy men and women, which found that the Weber calculation was accurate but less so than a direct distance with a modifier of 0.8 and the Filipovsky calculation to be highly inaccurate.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) was estimated using the time lag between aortic Pf and Pb (Qasem and Avolio, 2008). Carotid-femoral distance was estimated by multiplying body height by 0.29 which may reduce measurement bias due to body disproportion that can occur with the standard tape measure method (Filipovsky et al, 2010). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As it is done on body surface with a tape measure, obese people may have artificially longer distance. Although other methods for distance measurement were suggested, 11 the measurement on body surface is recommended by the expert documents. 7,10 The PWV measurement was also shown to have good reproducibility.…”
Section: Examinations and Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%