학술논문

Correlation between estimated pulse wave velocity values from two equations in healthy and under cardiovascular risk populations
Document Type
Report
Source
PLoS ONE. April 9, 2024, Vol. 19 Issue 4, pe0298405.
Subject
Brazil
Language
English
ISSN
1932-6203
Abstract
Introduction Equations can calculate pulse wave velocity (ePWV) from blood pressure values (BP) and age. The ePWV predicts cardiovascular events beyond carotid-femoral PWV. We aimed to evaluate the correlation between four different equations to calculate ePWV. Methods The ePWV was estimated utilizing mean BP (MBP) from office BP (MBP.sub.OBP) or 24-hour ambulatory BP (MBP.sub.24-hBP). We separated the whole sample into two groups: individuals with risk factors and healthy individuals. The e-PWV was calculated as follows:e1-PWV=9.58748315543126-0.402467539733184*age+4.56020798207263*10-3*age2-2.6207705511664*10-5*age2*MBP+3.1762450559276*10-3*age*MBP-1.83215068503821*10-2*MBPe2-PWV=4.62-0.13*age+0.0018*age2+0.0006*age*MBP+0.0284*MBPWe calculated the concordance correlation coefficient (Pc) between e1-PWV.sub.OBP vs e2-PWV.sub.OBP, e1-PWV.sub.24-hBP vs e2-PWV.sub.24-hBP, and mean values of e1-PWV.sub.OBP, e2-PWV.sub.OBP, e1-PWV.sub.24-hBP and e2-PWV.sub.24-hBP . The multilevel regression model determined how much the ePWVs are influenced by age and MBP values. Results We analyzed data from 1541 individuals; 1374 ones with risk factors and 167 healthy ones. The values are presented for the entire sample, for risk-factor patients and for healthy individuals respectively. The correlation between e1-PWV.sub.OBP with e2-PWV.sub.OBP and e1-PWV.sub.24-hBP with e2-PWV.sub.24-hBP was almost perfect. The Pc for e1-PWV.sub.OBP vs e2-PWV.sub.OBP was 0.996 (0.995-0.996), 0.996 (0.995-0.996), and 0.994 (0.992-0.995); furthermore, it was 0.994 (0.993-0.995), 0.994 (0.994-0.995), 0.987 (0.983-0.990) to the e1-PWV.sub.24-hBP vs e2-PWV.sub.24-hBP . There were no significant differences between mean values (m/s) for e1-PWV.sub.OBP vs e2-PWV.sub.OBP 8.98±1.9 vs 8.97±1.8; p = 0.88, 9.14±1.8 vs 9.13±1.8; p = 0.88, and 7.57±1.3 vs 7.65±1.3; p = 0.5; mean values are also similar for e1-PWV.sub.24-hBP vs e2-PWV.sub.24-hBP, 8.36±1.7 vs 8.46±1.6; p = 0.09, 8.50±1.7 vs 8.58±1.7; p = 0.21 and 7.26±1.3 vs 7.39±1.2; p = 0.34. The multiple linear regression showed that age, MBP, and age.sup.2 predicted more than 99.5% of all four e-PWV. Conclusion Our data presents a nearly perfect correlation between the values of two equations to calculate the estimated PWV, whether utilizing office or ambulatory blood pressure.
Author(s): Marco Av Silva 1,2,*, Ana Ps De Oliveira 3, Ana Cs Queiroz 4, Amanda O. Spaziani 2, Leticia Ab Fernandes 2, Kleber A. De Oliveira 2, Valquiria Da S. [...]