P6.20 EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ON CAROTID STIFFNESS EVALUATION

DOI

10.1016/j.artres.2013.10.201How to use a DOI?

Abstract

In recent years, great attention has been placed on local carotid elasticity. Carotid pulse wave velocity (cPWV) can be considered a surrogate marker for carotid stiffness evaluation. Aim of this study was to compare four different techniques for carotid stiffness assessment.

Ten young healthy subjects (34.7±6.9 years, 40% males, BMI 21.6±2.2 kg/m²) were enrolled. For each volunteer, four different carotid stiffness measurements were obtained: i) ultrasound carotid stiffness (CS) values were estimated from US diameter and tonometric pulse pressure measurements combined by Bramwhell-Hill equation ii) cPWV_loop values were calculated from US simultaneous measurements of diameter and flow velocity using the lnD-V loop slope iii) cPWV_MRI values were obtained from velocity-encoded MRI images using QA method iv) cPWV_Acc values were achieved by means of a new accelerometric system which consists in two percutaneous accelerometers placed 2.4 cm apart on the subject’s neck; PWV is calculated dividing the distance between the sensors for the time delay between the signals.

Table 1 shows the results of the comparisons between CS (5.39±0.76 m/s), cPWV_MRI (5.81±0.77 m/s), cPWV_loop (4.18±0.96 m/s) and cPWV_Acc (5.12±1.25 m/s) values. All the comparisons exhibit satisfying correlations. The only non-significative bias is shown by the comparison between CS values and cPWV_Acc ones while the comparison between CS measurements and cPWV_loop evaluations provides the lowest standard deviation of the difference.

In conclusion, this preliminary study suggests that attention should be placed when using different methods of carotid stiffness assessment, especially in case of comparison between values obtained with different methods.

	Mean Difference ± SD of difference (m/s)	R2
CS vs cPWVloop	1.29±0.42	0.81
CS vs cPWVMRI	−0.51±0.54	0.55
CS vs cPWVAcc	0.27±0.75	0.67
cPWVloop vs cPWVMRI	−1.77±0.56	0.71
cPWVloop vs cPWVAcc	−1.16±0.57	0.66
cPWVMRI vs cPWVAcc	−0.92±0.99	0.39

Open Access

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Download article (PDF)
View full text (HTML)

TY  - JOUR
AU  - N. Di Lascio
AU  - V. Gemignani
AU  - E. Bianchini
AU  - R.M. Bruno
AU  - F. Stea
AU  - L. Ghiadoni
AU  - F. Faita
PY  - 2013
DA  - 2013/11/11
TI  - P6.20 EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES ON CAROTID STIFFNESS EVALUATION
JO  - Artery Research
SP  - 159
EP  - 159
VL  - 7
IS  - 3-4
SN  - 1876-4401
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2013.10.201
DO  - 10.1016/j.artres.2013.10.201
ID  - DiLascio2013
ER  -