Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017
Development of Coronary Pulse Wave Velocity: New Pathophysiological Insight Into Coronary Artery Disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Harbaoui Brahim, Courand Pierre-Yves, Cividjian Andrei, Lantelme Pierre
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although aortic stiffness assessed by pulse wave velocity (PWV) is a strong predictor of coronary artery disease, the significance of local coronary stiffness has never been tackled. The first objective of this study was to describe a method of measuring coronary PWV (CoPWV) invasively and to describe its determinants. The second objective was to assess both CoPWV and aortic PWV in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes or stable coronary artery disease.
METHODS AND RESULTS: In 53 patients, CoPWV was measured from the delay in pressure wave and distance traveled as a pressure wire was withdrawn from the distal to the proximal coronary segment. Similarly, aortic PWV was measured invasively when the wire was pulled across the ascending aorta; carotid-femoral PWV was also measured noninvasively using the SphygmoCor system (AtCor Medical). Mean CoPWV was 10.3±6.1 m/s. Determinants of increased CoPWV were fractional flow reserve, diastolic blood pressure, and previous stent implantation in the recorded artery. CoPWV was lower in patients with acute coronary syndromes versus stable coronary artery disease (7.6±3 versus 11.5±6.4 m/s; P=0.02), and this persisted after adjustment for confounders. In contrast, aortic stiffness, assessed by aortic and carotid-femoral PWV, did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: CoPWV seems associated with acute coronary events more closely than aortic PWV. High coronary compliance, whether per se or because it leads to a distal shift in compliance mismatch, may expose vulnerable plaques to high cyclic stretch. CoPWV is a new tool to assess local compliance at the coronary level; it paves the way for a new field of research.
METHODS AND RESULTS: In 53 patients, CoPWV was measured from the delay in pressure wave and distance traveled as a pressure wire was withdrawn from the distal to the proximal coronary segment. Similarly, aortic PWV was measured invasively when the wire was pulled across the ascending aorta; carotid-femoral PWV was also measured noninvasively using the SphygmoCor system (AtCor Medical). Mean CoPWV was 10.3±6.1 m/s. Determinants of increased CoPWV were fractional flow reserve, diastolic blood pressure, and previous stent implantation in the recorded artery. CoPWV was lower in patients with acute coronary syndromes versus stable coronary artery disease (7.6±3 versus 11.5±6.4 m/s; P=0.02), and this persisted after adjustment for confounders. In contrast, aortic stiffness, assessed by aortic and carotid-femoral PWV, did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSIONS: CoPWV seems associated with acute coronary events more closely than aortic PWV. High coronary compliance, whether per se or because it leads to a distal shift in compliance mismatch, may expose vulnerable plaques to high cyclic stretch. CoPWV is a new tool to assess local compliance at the coronary level; it paves the way for a new field of research.