No abstract

Stiffness of elastic arteries like the aorta predicts cardiovascular risk. By directly reflecting arterial stiffness, having the best predictive value for cardiovascular outcome and the ease of its measurement, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity is now considered the gold standard for arterial stiffness assessment in daily practice. Many different measurement procedures have been proposed. Therefore, standardization of its measurement is urgently needed, particularly regarding the distance measurement. This consensus document advises on the measurement procedures in general and provides arguments for the use of 80% of the direct carotid-femoral distance as the most accurate distance estimate. It also advises the use of 10 m/s as new cut-off value for carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity.

No abstract

Background-Increased arterial stiffness, determined invasively, has been shown to predict a higher risk of coronary atherosclerosis. However, invasive techniques are of limited value for screening and risk stratification in larger patient groups. Methods and Results-We prospectively enrolled 465 consecutive, symptomatic men undergoing coronary angiography for the assessment of suspected coronary artery disease. Arterial stiffness and wave reflections were quantified noninvasively using applanation tonometry of the radial artery with a validated transfer function to generate the corresponding ascending aortic pressure waveform. Augmented pressure (AP) was defined as the difference between the second and the first systolic peak, and augmentation index (AIx) was AP expressed as a percentage of the pulse pressure.In univariate analysis, a higher AIx was associated with an increased risk for coronary artery disease (OR, 4.06 for the difference between the first and the fourth quartile [1.72 to 9.57; PϽ0.01]). In multivariate analysis, after controlling for age, height, presence of hypertension, HDL cholesterol, and medications, the association with coronary artery disease risk remained significant (OR, 6.91; PϽ0.05). The results were exclusively driven by an increase in risk with premature vessel stiffening in the younger patient group (up to 60 years of age), with an unadjusted OR between AIx quartiles I and IV of 8.25 (PϽ0.01) and a multiple-adjusted OR between these quartiles of 16.81 (PϽ0.05). Conclusions-AIx and AP, noninvasively determined manifestations of arterial stiffening and increased wave reflections, are strong, independent risk markers for premature coronary artery disease.

While risk scores are invaluable tools for adapted preventive strategies, a significant gap exists between predicted and actual event rates. Additional tools to further stratify the risk of patients at an individual level are biomarkers. A surrogate endpoint is a biomarker that is intended as a substitute for a clinical endpoint. In order to be considered as a surrogate endpoint of cardiovascular events, a biomarker should satisfy several criteria, such as proof of concept, prospective validation, incremental value, clinical utility, clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, ease of use, methodological consensus, and reference values. We scrutinized the role of peripheral (i.e. not related to coronary circulation) noninvasive vascular biomarkers for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention. Most of the biomarkers examined fit within the concept of early vascular aging. Biomarkers that fulfill most of the criteria and, therefore, are close to being considered a clinical surrogate endpoint are carotid ultrasonography, ankle-brachial index and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity; biomarkers that fulfill some, but not all of the criteria are brachial ankle pulse wave velocity, central haemodynamics/wave reflections and C-reactive protein; biomarkers that do no not at present fulfill essential criteria are flow-mediated dilation, endothelial peripheral arterial tonometry, oxidized LDL and dysfunctional HDL. Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether a specific vascular biomarker is overly superior. A prospective study in which all vascular biomarkers are measured is still lacking. In selected cases, the combined assessment of more than one biomarker may be required.