Kristina Lundwall, Maria Al Nouh, Thomas Kahan, Jonas Spaak
{"title":"评估心房颤动时的主动脉僵硬度:解决方案和注意事项","authors":"Kristina Lundwall, Maria Al Nouh, Thomas Kahan, Jonas Spaak","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundMethods to assess aortic stiffness are not validated during ongoing atrial fibrillation (AF) We aimed to determine whether aortic stiffness can be assessed reliably in patients during AF.Methods and resultsCarotid-to-femoral and aortic pulse wave velocity (cf/aoPWV), central blood pressure (BP), and augmentation index (AIx) were assessed by a two-site applanation method and a one-site cuff-based oscillometric method in 40 patients with persistent AF and repeated after cardioversion to SR. Mean age was 63 ± 8 years, 73% male, 50% hypertensive. For the two-site method, cfPWV values were slightly higher in AF than in SR (9.3 ± 1.8 vs. 8.5 ± 1.6 m/s, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001), whereas the one-site method provided similar values in AF and SR (10.1 ± 1.5 vs. 10.0 ± 1.8 m/s).The variability indices from the device was higher in AF for the two-site method (SD 2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 0.5 m/s, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001) but similar in AF and SR with the one-site method (SD 0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 m/s). Both methods yielded higher central BP (+4.8/+6.6 and +4.1/+5.7 mm Hg) and lower Aix (−6.8 and −9.1 mm Hg) in AF.ConclusionsAortic stiffness can be assessed during AF. Both methods yielded higher central BP and lower AIx in AF, but similar results for PWV in AF and SR, also when adjusted for BP changes. The two-site method showed high variability necessitating repeated measurements. The one-site method showed lower device-calculated variability and needed fewer repeated measurements.","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of aortic stiffness during atrial fibrillation: solutions and considerations\",\"authors\":\"Kristina Lundwall, Maria Al Nouh, Thomas Kahan, Jonas Spaak\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449168\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundMethods to assess aortic stiffness are not validated during ongoing atrial fibrillation (AF) We aimed to determine whether aortic stiffness can be assessed reliably in patients during AF.Methods and resultsCarotid-to-femoral and aortic pulse wave velocity (cf/aoPWV), central blood pressure (BP), and augmentation index (AIx) were assessed by a two-site applanation method and a one-site cuff-based oscillometric method in 40 patients with persistent AF and repeated after cardioversion to SR. Mean age was 63 ± 8 years, 73% male, 50% hypertensive. For the two-site method, cfPWV values were slightly higher in AF than in SR (9.3 ± 1.8 vs. 8.5 ± 1.6 m/s, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001), whereas the one-site method provided similar values in AF and SR (10.1 ± 1.5 vs. 10.0 ± 1.8 m/s).The variability indices from the device was higher in AF for the two-site method (SD 2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 0.5 m/s, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001) but similar in AF and SR with the one-site method (SD 0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 m/s). Both methods yielded higher central BP (+4.8/+6.6 and +4.1/+5.7 mm Hg) and lower Aix (−6.8 and −9.1 mm Hg) in AF.ConclusionsAortic stiffness can be assessed during AF. Both methods yielded higher central BP and lower AIx in AF, but similar results for PWV in AF and SR, also when adjusted for BP changes. The two-site method showed high variability necessitating repeated measurements. The one-site method showed lower device-calculated variability and needed fewer repeated measurements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449168\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1449168","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景评估主动脉僵硬度的方法尚未在持续房颤(AF)期间得到验证。我们的目的是确定是否能可靠地评估房颤期间患者的主动脉僵硬度。方法和结果在 40 名持续性房颤患者中,采用两点浮动法和单点袖带式示波法评估颈动脉至股动脉和主动脉脉搏波速度(cf/aoPWV)、中心血压(BP)和增强指数(AIx),并在心脏转复为 SR 后重复评估。患者平均年龄为 63 ± 8 岁,73% 为男性,50% 患有高血压。在双部位法中,房颤患者的 cfPWV 值略高于 SR 患者(9.3 ± 1.8 vs. 8.5 ± 1.6 m/s,p &;lt;0.001),而单部位法在房颤和 SR 患者中提供了相似的值(10.1 ± 1.5 vs. 10.0 ± 1.8 m/s)。在房颤中,双点法的设备变异指数更高(SD 2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 0.5 m/s,p <0.001),但在房颤和 SR 中,单点法的设备变异指数相似(SD 0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 m/s)。两种方法在房颤中均可获得较高的中心血压(+4.8/+6.6 和 +4.1/+5.7 mm Hg)和较低的 Aix(-6.8 和 -9.1 mm Hg)。心房颤动时,两种方法都能得出较高的中心血压和较低的 AIx,但心房颤动和 SR 的脉搏波速度结果相似,根据血压变化调整后也是如此。双点法显示出较高的变异性,需要重复测量。单点法的设备计算变异性较低,需要重复测量的次数也较少。
Assessment of aortic stiffness during atrial fibrillation: solutions and considerations
BackgroundMethods to assess aortic stiffness are not validated during ongoing atrial fibrillation (AF) We aimed to determine whether aortic stiffness can be assessed reliably in patients during AF.Methods and resultsCarotid-to-femoral and aortic pulse wave velocity (cf/aoPWV), central blood pressure (BP), and augmentation index (AIx) were assessed by a two-site applanation method and a one-site cuff-based oscillometric method in 40 patients with persistent AF and repeated after cardioversion to SR. Mean age was 63 ± 8 years, 73% male, 50% hypertensive. For the two-site method, cfPWV values were slightly higher in AF than in SR (9.3 ± 1.8 vs. 8.5 ± 1.6 m/s, p < 0.001), whereas the one-site method provided similar values in AF and SR (10.1 ± 1.5 vs. 10.0 ± 1.8 m/s).The variability indices from the device was higher in AF for the two-site method (SD 2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 0.5 m/s, p < 0.001) but similar in AF and SR with the one-site method (SD 0.7 ± 0.2 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 m/s). Both methods yielded higher central BP (+4.8/+6.6 and +4.1/+5.7 mm Hg) and lower Aix (−6.8 and −9.1 mm Hg) in AF.ConclusionsAortic stiffness can be assessed during AF. Both methods yielded higher central BP and lower AIx in AF, but similar results for PWV in AF and SR, also when adjusted for BP changes. The two-site method showed high variability necessitating repeated measurements. The one-site method showed lower device-calculated variability and needed fewer repeated measurements.
期刊介绍:
Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers?
At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.