...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of hypertension >Comparison of aortic pulse wave velocity measured by three techniques: Complior, SphygmoCor and Arteriograph.
【24h】

Comparison of aortic pulse wave velocity measured by three techniques: Complior, SphygmoCor and Arteriograph.

机译:比较三种技术测量的主动脉脉搏波速度:Complior,SphygmoCor和Arteriograph。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: New 2007 European Society of Hypertension guidelines recommend measuring arterial stiffness in patients with arterial hypertension, suggesting a carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity over 12 m/s as an estimate of subclinical organ damage. Considering this cutoff point, it is worth exploring whether or not there are significant differences in results obtained using various techniques for measuring aortic pulse wave velocity. The aim of the study was to compare aortic pulse wave velocity measurements using Complior, SphygmoCor, and Arteriograph devices, and to assess the effect of pulse wave transit time and traveled distance on pulse wave velocity values. METHODS: Aortic pulse wave velocity was measured on a single visit, using these devices, in randomized order, in a group of 64 patients with grade 1 or 2 arterial hypertension. RESULTS: Aortic pulse wave velocity measured using Complior (10.1 +/- 1.7 m/s) was significantly higher than that obtained using SphygmoCor (8.1 +/- 1.1 m/s) or Arteriograph (8.6 +/- 1.3 m/s). No differences were noted between pulse wave velocity measurements using SphygmoCor and Arteriograph. Between-method comparison revealed that differences in traveled distance were significant: Complior versus Arteriograph [0.09 m, Confidence interval (CI): 0.08-0.12 m, P < 0.05], Complior versus SphygmoCor (0.15 m, CI: 0.13-0.16 m, P < 0.05), Arteriograph versus SphygmoCor (0.05 m, CI: 0.03-0.07 m, P < 0.05). No between-method differences were found for transit times. CONCLUSION: 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.
机译:背景:2007年新的欧洲高血压学会指南建议测量患有动脉高血压的患者的动脉僵硬度,建议将颈股股脉搏波速度超过12 m / s作为亚临床器官损伤的评估。考虑到这个截止点,值得探讨使用各种测量主动脉脉搏波速度的技术所获得的结果是否存在显着差异。这项研究的目的是比较使用Complior,SphygmoCor和Arteriograph设备测量的主动脉脉搏波速度,并评估脉搏波传播时间和行进距离对脉搏波速度值的影响。方法:对64例1级或2级动脉高压患者进行随机访问,一次随机访问使用这些设备测量主动脉脉搏波速度。结果:使用Complior(10.1 +/- 1.7 m / s)测量的主动脉脉搏波速度明显高于使用SphygmoCor(8.1 +/- 1.1 m / s)或动脉造影仪(8.6 +/- 1.3 m / s)测得的主动脉脉搏波速度。使用SphygmoCor和Arteriograph测量脉搏波速度之间没有发现差异。方法之间的比较显示出行进距离的差异是显着的:Complior与Arteriograph [0.09 m,置信区间(CI):0.08-0.12 m,P <0.05],Complior与SphygmoCor(0.15 m,CI:0.13-0.16 m, P <0.05),动脉造影仪与SphygmoCor的比较(0.05 m,CI:0.03-0.07 m,P <0.05)。在运输时间上未发现方法间差异。结论:比较设备获得的脉搏波速度差异主要是由于使用各种测量行进距离的方法造成的。建立统一的行进距离测量原理似乎是合理的。由于大量的预后/生存研究均使用脉搏波记录的颈动脉与股骨部位之间的直接距离,因此应主要推荐该距离。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号