Using the Cardio-Ankle Vascular Index (CAVI) or the Mathematical Correction Form (CAVI0) in Clinical Practice

Abstract

Tonhajzerova et al [...]

Reply to Comments: Using the Cardio-Ankle Vascular Index (CAVI) or the Mathematical Correction Form (CAVI0) in Clinical Practice

“…Notably, CAVI 0 does not use such scale parameters. Considering these criticisms, as well as the CAVI-CAVI 0 discussion, Alizargar et al suggest that normal PWV and stiffness index β may be more reliable indices than the (less established) CAVI and CAVI 0 [1]. We agree that PWV indeed is more established, and has the advantage that it is "simpler", or "closer to the measurement", but with the trade-off of being inherently blood pressure dependent.…”

“…Alizargar et al also mention that in our initial study, we did not take into account physiological properties of individuals, such as body mass index (BMI) [1,4]. Again, BMI is a cross-sectional property that varies between individuals.…”

“…We read with great interest Alizargar et al's comment on our recent review on biomarkers in cervical cancer and human papillomavirus infection [1,2]. In their comment, they raise important questions and concerns about using cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) and CAVI 0 [3,4].…”

“…Alizargar et al point out that Shirai et al observed a negative, "inexplicable" correlation between CAVI 0 and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in healthy individuals, which Shirai et al then used as a reason to label CAVI 0 as "inappropriate" [1,9]. Again, this correlation is cross-sectional, and indicates (statistically) that subjects with a higher CAVI 0 on average have a lower DBP.…”