Correlation between estimated pulse wave velocity values from two equations in healthy and under cardiovascular risk populations
<p><strong>Introduction </strong><strong>: </strong>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.</p> <p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ePWV was estimated utilizing mean BP (MBP) from office BP (MBP<sub>OBP</sub>) or 24-hour ambulatory BP (MBP<sub>24-hBP</sub>). We separated the whole sample into two groups: individuals with risk factors and healthy individuals. The e-PWV was calculated as follows: </p> <p>We calculated the concordance correlation coefficient (Pc) between e1-PWV<sub>OBP</sub> vs e2-PWV<sub>OBP</sub>, e1-PWV<sub>24-hBP</sub> vs e2-PWV<sub>24-hBP</sub>, and mean values of e1-PWV<sub>OBP</sub>, e2-PWV<sub>OBP</sub>, e1-PWV<sub>24-hBP, </sub>and e2-PWV<sub>24-hBP </sub>. The multilevel regression model determined how much the ePWVs are influenced by age and MBP values.</p> <p><strong>Results:</strong> 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-PWV<sub>OBP</sub> with e2-PWV<sub>OBP</sub> and e1-PWV<sub>24-hBP </sub>with e2-PWV<sub>24-hBP</sub> was almost perfect. The Pc for e1-PWV<sub>OBP</sub> vs e2-PWV<sub>OBP</sub> 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-PWV<sub>24-hBP </sub>vs e2-PWV<sub>24-hBP</sub>. There were no significant differences between mean values (m/s) for e1-PWV<sub>OBP</sub> vs e2-PWV<sub>OBP</sub> 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-PWV<sub>24-hBP </sub>vs e2-PWV<sub>24-hBP</sub>, 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.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p>
ShareScore
32/100
Overall dataset sharing score
Score breakdown
These five areas show where the dataset supports — or may limit — practical reuse.
- Stewardship
- 4
- Harmonization
- 12
- Access
- 12
- Reuse readiness
- 0
- Engagement
- 4