RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Equations can calculate pulse wave velocity (ePWV) from blood pressure values (BP) and age. The ePWV predicts cardiovascular events beyond carotid-femoral PWV. We aimed to evaluate the correlation between four different equations to calculate ePWV. METHODS: The ePWV was estimated utilizing mean BP (MBP) from office BP (MBPOBP) or 24-hour ambulatory BP (MBP24-hBP). We separated the whole sample into two groups: individuals with risk factors and healthy individuals. The e-PWV was calculated as follows: [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] We calculated the concordance correlation coefficient (Pc) between e1-PWVOBP vs e2-PWVOBP, e1-PWV24-hBP vs e2-PWV24-hBP, and mean values of e1-PWVOBP, e2-PWVOBP, e1-PWV24-hBP and e2-PWV24-hBP. The multilevel regression model determined how much the ePWVs are influenced by age and MBP values. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 1541 individuals; 1374 ones with risk factors and 167 healthy ones. The values are presented for the entire sample, for risk-factor patients and for healthy individuals respectively. The correlation between e1-PWVOBP with e2-PWVOBP and e1-PWV24-hBP with e2-PWV24-hBP was almost perfect. The Pc for e1-PWVOBP vs e2-PWVOBP was 0.996 (0.995-0.996), 0.996 (0.995-0.996), and 0.994 (0.992-0.995); furthermore, it was 0.994 (0.993-0.995), 0.994 (0.994-0.995), 0.987 (0.983-0.990) to the e1-PWV24-hBP vs e2-PWV24-hBP. There were no significant differences between mean values (m/s) for e1-PWVOBP vs e2-PWVOBP 8.98±1.9 vs 8.97±1.8; p = 0.88, 9.14±1.8 vs 9.13±1.8; p = 0.88, and 7.57±1.3 vs 7.65±1.3; p = 0.5; mean values are also similar for e1-PWV24-hBP vs e2-PWV24-hBP, 8.36±1.7 vs 8.46±1.6; p = 0.09, 8.50±1.7 vs 8.58±1.7; p = 0.21 and 7.26±1.3 vs 7.39±1.2; p = 0.34. The multiple linear regression showed that age, MBP, and age2 predicted more than 99.5% of all four e-PWV. CONCLUSION: Our data presents a nearly perfect correlation between the values of two equations to calculate the estimated PWV, whether utilizing office or ambulatory blood pressure.
