These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The Background of Calculating CAVI: Lesson from the Discrepancy Between CAVI and CAVI0.
    Author: Takahashi K, Yamamoto T, Tsuda S, Maruyama M, Shirai K.
    Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag; 2020; 16():193-201. PubMed ID: 32547046.
    Abstract:
    Arterial stiffness is a good predictor of cardiovascular events. As a substitute for elastic modulus representing stiffness, pulse wave velocity (PWV) has been used for over a century as it is easy to measure; however, PWV is known to essentially depend on blood pressure at the time of measurement. The cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) is a relatively new index of global arterial stiffness of the origin of the aorta to the ankle arteries. The characteristic feature is its independency from blood pressure at the measuring time. Recently, a variant index CAVI0 was proposed, which was claimed to be a more accurate arterial stiffness index than CAVI, considering independency from blood pressure. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the properties of CAVI more precisely by comparing with CAVI0, and to confirm the true meaning of CAVI as an index of arterial stiffness. First, the properties of PWV depending on the blood pressure and the variation of PWV values in the cardiac cycle were analyzed. Then, we attempted to clarify the point at which the PWV, adopted in CAVI or in CAVI0, was measured in cardiac cycle. A comprehensive comparison of the clinical data of CAVI and CAVI0 showed that CAVI is more appropriate than CAVI0. In conclusion, CAVI is reconfirmed to be a reliable and useful index of blood pressure-independent arterial stiffness composed of both organic and functional stiffness.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]