The relation of arterial stiffness to endothelial function in healthy subjects

• Published in: Physiological measurement Vol. 28; no. 5; p. 573
• Main Authors: Wright, C I, Brouwer-de Cock, K A J, Kroner, C I, Hoeks, A P G, Draijer, R
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England 01-05-2007
• Subjects: Adult; Blood Pressure Determination; Brachial Artery - physiology; Compliance; Cross-Over Studies; Endothelium, Vascular - physiology; Female; Humans; Hyperemia - physiopathology; Male; Pulse
• ISSN: 0967-3334
• DOI: 10.1088/0967-3334/28/5/010

Local wall stiffness affects endothelial responsiveness but how global measures affect responsiveness is unanswered. We assessed this by comparing reactive hyperaemic responses of brachial diameter (RHRBD) with central (heart-to-brachial artery pulse wave velocity (PWV); large (C1)) and peripheral (C2) arterial stiffness. Twelve healthy subjects were investigated. RHRBD was induced via an upper- or forearm occluding cuff. Arterial diameter changes were measured using echo ultrasound. Arterial stiffness and RHRBD were compared using a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and Bland-Altman analysis of Z-scores (indicated as 95% confidence intervals (CI) and expressed in units of standard deviation (SD) from the mean). Weak relations were found between upper-arm RHRBD responses and C2 (r = 0.56, P = 0.06; 95% CI +/- 1.84 SDs) and C1 (r = 0.55, P = 0.06; 95% CI +/- 1.86 SDs). An inverse relation was found between upper-arm RHRBD responses and PWV (r = -0.55, P = 0.06), but Bland-Altman plots revealed no agreement between these parameters (P > 0.05; 95% CI +/- 3.46 SDs). Forearm RHRBD were not related to PWV, C1 or C2 (P > 0.05; 95% CI > 2 SDs). The weak relation between upper-arm endothelial responses and C2 and C1 seems to suggest that C2, and also C1, is not a good and reliable method for assessments of endothelial health. Furthermore, if anything, upper-arm mediated RHRBD responses are more affected by arterial stiffness than forearm responses.