Use of the augmentation index from applanation tonometry of the radial artery for assessing the extent of coronary artery calcium as assessed by coronary computed tomography
Use of the augmentation index from applanation tonometry of the radial artery for assessing the extent of coronary artery calcium as assessed by coronary computed tomography
复制标题
使用桡动脉压平张力测量的增强指数来评估通过冠状动脉计算机断层扫描评估的冠状动脉钙化程度
DOI：
10.1080/10641963.2016.1267195
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
12.3
通讯作者：
Kihara Yasuki
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Watanabe Noriaki;Kurisu Satoshi;Sumimoto Yoji;Ikenaga Hiroki;Shimonaga Takashi;Higaki Tadanao;Tatsugami Fuminari;Ishibashi Ken;Kitagawa Toshiro;Dohi Yoshihiro;Fukuda Yukihiro;Yamamoto Hideya;Awai Kazuo;Kihara Yasuki
工作背景：从桡动脉压平眼压测量获得的增强指数（AI）在技术上是评估动脉硬度的最简单和最快速的方法。我们测试的假设，径向AI是与冠状动脉钙（CAC）的程度进行评估，冠状动脉计算机断层扫描（CCT）。方法和结果：本研究包括161例已知或怀疑冠状动脉疾病进行中央血流动力学测量和CCT。记录径向AI，并根据心率进行校正（径向AI@75）。37例患者无CAC（CAC评分= 0），85例患者有低度CAC（CAC评分= 1-399），39例患者有高度CAC（CAC评分≥400）。除年龄和血清肌酐外，三组之间的冠状动脉危险因素相似。肱动脉收缩压（SBP）（p= 0.011）和桡动脉AI@75（%）（p= 0.006）存在显著差异。多因素分析显示年龄（β= 0.27，p = 0.001）、血清肌酐（β= 0.18，p = 0.03）和桡动脉AI@75（β= 0.24，p = 0.005）与ln（CAC评分+1）显著相关，而肱动脉SBP与ln无关。此外，血清肌酐（比值比：11.91，95%置信区间：1.46- 112.0，p = 0.02）和径向AI@75（每10%）（比值比：1.76，95%可信区间：1.22- 2.64，p = 0.002）是与高度CAC相关的独立因素。我们的研究结果表明，在已知或疑似冠状动脉疾病患者中，桡动脉AI比肱动脉SBP更适合用于估计CAC。
Background: The augmentation index (AI) obtained from applanation tonometry of the radial artery is technically the easiest and quickest of available methods for assessing arterial stiffness. We tested the hypothesis that the radial AI is associated with the extent of coronary artery calcium (CAC) as assessed by coronary computed tomography (CCT).Methods and Results: This study included 161 patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing central hemodynamic measurements and CCT. Radial AI was recorded and was corrected in accordance with heart rate (radial AI@75). Thirty-seven patients had no CAC (CAC score = 0), 85 had low-grade CAC (CAC score = 1–399), and 39 had high-grade CAC (CAC score ≥400). Coronary risk factors, except for age and serum creatinine, were similar among the three groups. There were significant differences in brachial systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p= 0.011) and radial AI@75 (%) (p= 0.006). Multivariate analysis showed that age (β= 0.27,p= 0.001), serum creatinine (β= 0.18,p= 0.03), and radial AI@75 (β= 0.24,p= 0.005) were significantly associated with ln (CAC score + 1), whereas brachial SBP was not. Additionally, serum creatinine (odds ratio: 11.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.46–112.0,p= 0.02) and radial AI@75 (per 10%) (odds ratio: 1.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.22–2.64,p= 0.002) were independent factors associated with high-grade CAC.Conclusions: Our results suggest that the radial AI is better for estimating CAC than brachial SBP in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.