Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Dec;81(12):e185-e196.
doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.124.23392. Epub 2024 Oct 7.

Aortic-Femoral Stiffness Gradient and Cardiovascular Risk in Older Adults

Affiliations

Aortic-Femoral Stiffness Gradient and Cardiovascular Risk in Older Adults

Keeron Stone et al. Hypertension. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Background: The aortic-femoral arterial stiffness gradient, calculated as the ratio of lower-limb pulse-wave velocity (PWV) to central (aortic) PWV, is a promising tool for assessing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, but whether it predicts incident CVD is unknown.

Methods: We examined the association of the aortic-femoral arterial stiffness gradient measures carotid-femoral stiffness gradient (femoral-ankle PWV divided by carotid-femoral PWV) and the heart-femoral stiffness gradient (femoral-ankle PWV divided by heart-femoral PWV), as well as PWV, with incident CVD (coronary disease, stroke, and heart failure) and all-cause mortality among 3109 participants of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study cohort (age, 75±5 years; carotid-femoral PWV, 11.5±3.0 m/s), free of CVD. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs.

Results: Over a median 7.4-year follow-up, there were 322 cases of incident CVD and 410 deaths. In fully adjusted models, only top quartiles of carotid-femoral stiffness gradient (quartile 4: HR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.03-1.97]; and quartile 3: HR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.08-2.05]) and heart-femoral stiffness gradient (quartile 4: HR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.27-2.48]; and quartile 3: HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.00-2.00]) were significantly associated with a greater risk of incident CVD. Only high aortic stiffness in combination with low lower-limb stiffness was significantly associated with incident CVD (HR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.06-2.02]) compared with the referent low aortic stiffness and high lower-limb stiffness. No PWVs were significantly associated with incident CVD. No exposures were associated with all-cause mortality.

Conclusions: The aortic-femoral arterial stiffness gradient may enhance CVD risk assessment in older adults in whom the predictive capacity of traditional risk factors and PWV are attenuated.

Keywords: arterial stiffness; cardiovascular diseases; heart failure; pulse wave velocity; risk factors; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Cumulative probability of cardiovascular events by quartiles of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (A), carotid-femoral arterial stiffness gradient (B), heart-femoral pulse wave velocity (C), heart-femoral arterial stiffness gradient (D), and femoral-ankle PWV (E). Log-rank statistic was used to compare survival distributions between quartiles.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Associations of pulse wave velocity and aortic-femoral arterial stiffness gradient with risk of cardiovascular events. Abbreviations: Carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity; hfPWV, heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity; faPWV, femoral-ankle pulse-wave velocity; cfSG, carotid-femoral arterial stiffness gradient; hfSG, heart-femoral arterial stiffness gradient; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; Q1, quartile 1; Q2, quartile 2, Q3; quartile 3; Q4, quartile 4. Model adjustments: age, sex, race-centre, education, current smoking status, history of diabetes, mean arterial pressure, antihypertensive medication, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and heart rate. cfPWV range (m/s): Q1, <9.4; Q2, 9.4 to 11.0; Q3, 11.0 to 13.1, Q4 >13.1. hfPWV range (m/s): Q1, <9.9; Q2, 9.9 to 11.2; Q3, 11.2 to 12.9, Q4 >12.9. faPWV range (m/s): Q1, <9.9; Q2, 9.9 to 10.9; Q3, 10.9 to 12.0, Q4 >12.0. cfSG range: Q1, >1.18; Q2, 1.18 to 1.00; Q3, >0.99 to 0.82, Q4 <0.82. hfSG range: Q1, >1.13; Q2, 1.13 to 0.97; Q3, >0.97 to 0.83, Q4 <0.83.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Cumulative probability of all-cause mortality by quartiles of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (A), carotid-femoral arterial stiffness gradient (B), heart-femoral pulse wave velocity (C), heart-femoral arterial stiffness gradient (D), and femoral-ankle PWV (E). Log-rank statistic was used to compare survival distributions between quartiles.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Associations of pulse wave velocity and aortic-femoral arterial stiffness gradient measures with risk of all-cause mortality. Abbreviations: Carotid-femoral pulse-wave velocity; hfPWV, heart-femoral pulse-wave velocity; faPWV, femoral-ankle pulse-wave velocity; cfSG, carotid-femoral arterial stiffness gradient; hfSG, heart-femoral arterial stiffness gradient; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; Q1, quartile 1; Q2, quartile 2, Q3; quartile 3; Q4, quartile 4. Model adjustments: age, sex, race-centre, education, current smoking status, history of diabetes, mean arterial pressure, antihypertensive medication, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and heart rate. cfPWV range (m/s): Q1, <9.4; Q2, 9.4 to 11.0; Q3, 11.0 to 13.1, Q4 >13.1. hfPWV range (m/s): Q1, <9.9; Q2, 9.9 to 11.2; Q3, 11.2 to 12.9, Q4 >12.9. faPWV range (m/s): Q1, <9.9; Q2, 9.9 to 10.9; Q3, 10.9 to 12.0, Q4 >12.0. cfSG range: Q1, >1.18; Q2, 1.18 to 1.00; Q3, >0.99 to 0.82, Q4 <0.82. hfSG range: Q1, >1.13; Q2, 1.13 to 0.97; Q3, >0.97 to 0.83, Q4 <0.83.

References

    1. Ben-Shlomo Y, Spears M, Boustred C, May M, Anderson SG, Benjamin EJ, Boutouyrie P, Cameron J, Chen CH, Cruickshank JK, et al. Aortic pulse wave velocity improves cardiovascular event prediction: an individual participant meta-analysis of prospective observational data from 17,635 subjects. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014;63:636–646. doi: 10.1016/J.JACC.2013.09.063 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Avolio AP, Chen SG, Wang RP, Zhang CL, Li MF, O’Rourke MF. Effects of aging on changing arterial compliance and left ventricular load in a northern Chinese urban community. Circulation. 1983;68:50–58. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.68.1.50 - DOI - PubMed
    1. London GM, Pannier B. Arterial functions: how to interpret the complex physiology. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association. 2010;25:3815–3823. doi: 10.1093/NDT/GFQ614 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Briet M, Boutouyrie P, Laurent S, London GM. Arterial stiffness and pulse pressure in CKD and ESRD. Kidney Int. 2012;82:388–400. doi: 10.1038/ki.2012.131 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fortier C, Agharazii M. Arterial Stiffness Gradient. Pulse (Basel, Switzerland). 2016;3:159–166. doi: 10.1159/000438852 - DOI - PMC - PubMed