Background Aortic stenosis (AS) is commonly associated with myocardial and systemic arterial dysfunction. We use a radial artery applanation tonometry (B-Pro) device to characterise the arterial pulse profile of patients with AS and compare them against controls.
Methods The B-Pro device was applied on the left radial artery of 117 consecutive patients, where 21 patients had AS. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were compared. Differences in arterial pulse pressure profile were quantified by means of univariate and multivariable analyses.
Results The group with AS was older (74±14 vs 62±14 years, P<0.001) and had fewer males (38% vs 65%, P=0.025), while other baseline comorbidities were similar. From the arterial pulse profile, a higher systolic peak time (202±45 vs 152±49 ms, P<0.001), lower systolic upstroke gradient (0.35±0.10 vs 0.42±0.14 mm Hg/ms, P=0.022) and longer systolic component of the cardiac cycle (43%±7% vs 39%±5%, P=0.001) were independently associated with AS.
Conclusion The B-Pro device allows for real-time microscopic arterial pulse waveform analysis. There are significant differences between the pulse profiles of patients with AS and controls. The prognostic implications of these differences warrant further study.
- aortic stenosis
- radial applanation tonometry
- pulse wave reflection
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors NN was involved in the data analysis and conception, writing of the manuscript and submitted the manuscript. XS was involved in the data analysis and conception and writing of the manuscript. Y-QBT was involved in the conception and writing of the manuscript. SO was involved in the data collection and analysis. GKML was involved in data analysis. WKFK was involved in the writing of the manuscript. K-KP was involved in the conception and writing of the manuscript.
Funding There was no monetary funding for this study.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval The study was approved by the National Healthcare Group Institutional Review Board, Singapore.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.