Volume 33, Issue 1 pp. 77-81
Original Investigation

Comparison between Regional and Local Pulse-Wave Velocity Data

Iana Simova Ph.D.

Corresponding Author

Iana Simova Ph.D.

Department of Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging and Functional Diagnostics, National Cardiology Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria

Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Iana Simova, Ph.D., Department of Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging and Functional Diagnostics, National Cardiology Hospital, 65 Koniovitsa Str, Sofia 1309, Bulgaria. Fax: +0035928229388; E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Tzvetana Katova D.Sci.

Tzvetana Katova D.Sci.

Department of Noninvasive Cardiovascular Imaging and Functional Diagnostics, National Cardiology Hospital, Sofia, Bulgaria

Search for more papers by this author
Ciro Santoro M.D.

Ciro Santoro M.D.

Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico University Hospital, Naples, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
Maurizio Galderisi Ph.D.

Maurizio Galderisi Ph.D.

Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico University Hospital, Naples, Italy

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 06 June 2015
Citations: 13
Funding Sources: This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Abstract

Background

Gold standard for pulse-wave velocity (PWV) measurement is determination of the carotid-femoral cfPWV, reflecting regional aortic PWV. Nevertheless, in several echocardiographic laboratories, PWV is measured locally, most commonly at the common carotid artery (CCA). The aim of this study was to compare regional and local PWV values in healthy volunteers.

Methods

The study population consisted of 22 prospectively enrolled healthy subjects, mean age 38.7 ± 11.1 years, 50% male. For regional PWV measurement, we evaluated cfPWV with a standard echo scanner. Regional PWV was measured at the CCA, with semiautomated dedicated software (MyLab, EsaOte, Italy).

Results

cfPWV and local PWV values correlated significantly with high Pearson correlation coefficient (0.62, P = 0.002). Mean regional cfPWV (9.29 ± 3.73 m/s), however, was significantly higher than mean local PWV value (5.96 ± 1.08 m/s) (P < 0.001). The difference persisted in the subgroup analysis using different cfPWV cutoff values (10, 9, 8, and 7 m/s), except for subjects with cfPWV ≤7 m/s, where regional and local PWV values were similar.

Conclusion

In a group of healthy volunteers, regional and local PWV values showed a good correlation. However, regional PWV was significantly higher than local PWV. These findings should be carefully taken into account when using this technique in the clinical setting.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.