Myocardial oxygen supply and demand imbalance predicts mortality in older nursing home residents: The PARTAGE study.

BACKGROUND: A mismatch between myocardial oxygen supply and demand is the most common cause of ischemic myocardial injury in older persons. The subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR) can usefully estimate the degree of myocardial perfusion relative to left-ventricular workload. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ability of SEVR to predict long-term mortality in the older population. Additionally, we aimed to identify the SEVR cutoff value best predicting total mortality. METHODS: This is a multicenter, longitudinal study involving a large population of individuals older than 80 years living in nursing homes. Patients with cancer, severe dementia, and very low level of autonomy were excluded from the study. Participants were monitored for 10 years. Adverse outcomes were recorded every 3 months from inclusion to the end of the study. SEVR reflects the balance between subendocardial oxygen supply and demand, and was estimated non-invasively by analyzing the carotid pressure waveform recorded by applanation arterial tonometry. RESULTS: A total of 828 people were enrolled (mean age: 87.7 ± 4.7 years, 78% female). 735 patients died within 10 years and 24 were lost to follow-up. SEVR was inversely associated with mortality at univariate Cox-regression model (risk ratio, 0.683 per unit increase in SEVR; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.502-0.930], p = 0.015) and in a model including age, sex, body mass index, Activity of Daily Living index and Mini-Mental State Examination score (risk ratio, 0.647; 95% CI [0.472-0.930]). The lowest tertile of SEVR was associated with higher 10-years total mortality than the middle (p < 0.001) and the highest (p < 0.004) tertile. A SEVR cutoff value of 83% was identified as the best predictor of total mortality. CONCLUSIONS: SEVR may be considered as a marker of "cardiovascular frailty." An accurate non-invasive estimation of SEVR could be a useful and independent parameter to assess survival probability in very old adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00901355, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov website.

Comparison Between Invasive and Noninvasive Methods to Estimate Subendocardial Oxygen Supply and Demand Imbalance.

Background Estimation of the balance between subendocardial oxygen supply and demand could be a useful parameter to assess the risk of myocardial ischemia. Evaluation of the subendocardial viability ratio (SEVR, also known as Buckberg index) by invasive recording of left ventricular and aortic pressure curves represents a valid method to estimate the degree of myocardial perfusion relative to left ventricular workload. However, routine clinical use of this parameter requires its noninvasive estimation and the demonstration of its reliability. Methods and Results Arterial applanation tonometry allows a noninvasive estimation of SEVR as the ratio of the areas directly beneath the central aortic pressure curves obtained during diastole (myocardial oxygen supply) and during systole (myocardial oxygen demand). However, this "traditional" method does not account for the intra-ventricular diastolic pressure and proper allocation to systole and diastole of left ventricular isometric contraction and relaxation, respectively, resulting in an overestimation of the SEVR values. These issues are considered in the novel method for SEVR assessment tested in this study. SEVR values estimated with carotid tonometry by "traditional" and "new" method were compared with those evaluated invasively by cardiac catheterization. The "traditional" method provided significantly higher SEVR values than the reference invasive SEVR: average of differences±SD= 44±11% (limits of agreement: 23% - 65%). The noninvasive "new" method showed a much better agreement with the invasive determination of SEVR: average of differences±SD= 0±8% (limits of agreement: -15% to 16%). Conclusions Carotid applanation tonometry provides valid noninvasive SEVR values only when all the main factors determining myocardial supply and demand flow are considered.

Mean arterial pressure estimated by brachial pulse wave analysis and comparison with currently used algorithms.

OBJECTIVE: Mean arterial pressure (MAP) is usually calculated by adding one-third of pulse pressure (PP) to DBP. This formula assumes that the average value of pulse waveform is constant in all individuals and coincides with 33.3% of PP amplitude (MAP = DBP + PP × 0.333). Other formulas were lately proposed to improve the MAP estimation, adding to DBP an established percentage of PP: MAP = DBP + PP × 0.40; MAP = DBP + PP × 0.412; MAP = DBP + PP × 0.333 + 5 mmHg. METHODS: The current study evaluated the integral of brachial pulse waveform recorded by applanation tonometry in 1526 patients belonging to three distinct cohorts: normotensive or hypertensive elderly, hypertensive adults, and normotensive adults. RESULTS: The percentage of PP to be added to DBP to obtain MAP was extremely variable among individuals, ranging from 23 to 58% (mean: 42.2 ±â€Š5.5%), higher in women (42.9 ±â€Š5.6%) than men (41.2 ±â€Š5.1%, P < 0.001), lower in the elderly cohort (40.9 ±â€Š5.3%) than in the general population cohort (42.8 ±â€Š6.0%, P < 0.001) and in the hypertensive patients (42.4 ±â€Š4.8%, P < 0.001). This percentage was significantly associated with DBP (ß = 0.357, P < 0.001) and sex (ß = 0.203, P < 0.001) and significantly increased after mental stress test in 19 healthy volunteers (from 39.9 ±â€Š3.2 at baseline, to 43.0 ±â€Š4.0, P < 0.0001). The average difference between MAP values estimated by formulas, compared with MAP assessed on the brachial tonometric curve, was (mean ±â€Š1.96 × SD): -5.0 ±â€Š6.7 mmHg when MAP = DBP + PP × 0333; -1.2 ±â€Š6.1 mmHg when MAP = DBP + PP × 0.40; -0.6 ±â€Š6.1 mmHg when MAP = DBP + PP × 0.412; -0.4 ±â€Š6.7 mmHg when MAP = DBP + PP × 0.333 + 5. CONCLUSION: Due to high interindividual and intraindividual variability of pulse waveform, the estimation of MAP based on fixed formulas derived from SBP and DBP is unreliable. Conversely, a more accurate estimation of MAP should be based on the pulse waveform analysis.

Noninvasive Estimation of Aortic Stiffness Through Different Approaches.

Aortic pulse wave velocity is a worldwide accepted index to evaluate aortic stiffness and can be assessed noninvasively by several methods. This study sought to determine if commonly used noninvasive devices can all accurately estimate aortic pulse wave velocity. Pulse wave velocity was estimated in 102 patients (aged 65±13 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography with 7 noninvasive devices and compared with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. Devices evaluating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ET, PulsePen ETT, and SphygmoCor) showed a strong agreement between each other ( r>0.83) and with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. The mean difference ±SD with the invasive pulse wave velocity was -0.73±2.83 m/s ( r=0.64) for Complior-Analyse: 0.20±2.54 m/s ( r=0.71) for PulsePen-ETT: -0.04±2.33 m/s ( r=0.78) for PulsePen ET; and -0.61±2.57 m/s ( r=0.70) for SphygmoCor. The finger-toe pulse wave velocity, evaluated by pOpmètre, showed only a weak relationship with invasive aortic recording (mean difference ±SD =-0.44±4.44 m/s; r=0.41), and with noninvasive carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements ( r<0.33). Pulse wave velocity estimated through a proprietary algorithm by BPLab (v.5.03 and v.6.02) and Mobil-O-Graph showed a weaker agreement with invasive pulse wave velocity compared with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (mean difference ±SD =-0.71±3.55 m/s, r=0.23; 1.04±2.27 m/s, r=0.77; and -1.01±2.54 m/s, r=0.71, respectively), revealing a negative proportional bias at Bland-Altman plot. Aortic pulse wave velocity values provided by BPLab and Mobil-O-Graph were entirely dependent on age-squared and peripheral systolic blood pressure (cumulative r2=0.98 and 0.99, respectively). Thus, among the methods evaluated, only those assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ETT, PulsePen ET, and SphygmoCor) appear to be reliable approaches for estimation of aortic stiffness.

Short-Term Repeatability of Noninvasive Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity Assessment: Comparison Between Methods and Devices.

BACKGROUND: Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) is an indirect index of arterial stiffness and an independent cardiovascular risk factor. Consistency of PWV assessment over time is thus an essential feature for its clinical application. However, studies providing a comparative estimate of the reproducibility of PWV across different noninvasive devices are lacking, especially in the elderly and in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Aimed at filling this gap, short-term repeatability of PWV, estimated with 6 different devices (Complior Analyse, PulsePen-ETT, PulsePen-ET, SphygmoCor Px/Vx, BPLab, and Mobil-O-Graph), was evaluated in 102 high cardiovascular risk patients hospitalized for suspected coronary artery disease (72 males, 65 ± 13 years). PWV was measured in a single session twice, at 15-minute interval, and its reproducibility was assessed though coefficient of variation (CV), coefficient of repeatability, and intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The CV of PWV, measured with any of these devices, was <10%. Repeatability was higher with cuff-based methods (BPLab: CV = 5.5% and Mobil-O-Graph: CV = 3.4%) than with devices measuring carotid-femoral PWV (Complior: CV = 8.2%; PulsePen-TT: CV = 8.0%; PulsePen-ETT: CV = 5.8%; and SphygmoCor: CV = 9.5%). In the latter group, PWV repeatability was lower in subjects with higher carotid-femoral PWV. The differences in PWV between repeated measurements, except for the Mobil-O-Graph, did not depend on short-term variations of mean blood pressure or heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the short-term repeatability of PWV measures is good but not homogenous across different devices and at different PWV values. These findings, obtained in patients at high cardiovascular risk, may be relevant when evaluating the prognostic importance of PWV.

Influence of carotid atherosclerotic plaques on pulse wave assessment with arterial tonometry.

OBJECTIVE: Aortic stiffness and central pressure measurements have become increasingly important for the overall estimation of cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study is to verify whether the presence of stenosis in the carotid arteries due to atherosclerotic plaques may induce a bias in the measurement of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) and in the analysis of central pulse waveform variables assessed by carotid tonometry. METHODS: Eighty-four patients (age: 67.1 ±â€Š12.4 years) undergoing screening for carotid atherosclerosis were enrolled, divided into three groups according to carotid ultrasound findings (NASCET criteria): 28 patients without significant stenosis, 30 patients with bilateral plaques, and 26 patients with right or left monolateral stenosis. PWV and other variables derived from the central pulse waveform analysis (central blood pressure, augmentation index and forward and backward waves) were measured at both right and left carotid arteries by a validated PulsePen tonometer. A repeatability study was performed in 28 young healthy patients (age: 25.4 ±â€Š2.9 years). RESULTS: A high degree of correlation was found between bilateral measurements in all groups, and particularly in groups with monolateral carotid stenosis, with no significant difference attributable to lateralized stenosis. Right-left differences in asymmetric groups were 0.35 ±â€Š5.12 mmHg (R = 0.960) for central blood pressure, -2.12 ±â€Š7.39% (R = 0.743) for augmentation index, 0.64 ±â€Š1.56 m/s (R = 0.947) for PWV, 0.08 ±â€Š8.48 mmHg for forward wave (R = 0.742) and 0.35 ±â€Š2.35 mmHg for backward wave (R = 0.907). CONCLUSION: Measurement of PWV and of variables derived from the central pulse waveform analysis by carotid tonometry is not biased by the presence of local atherosclerotic plaques.