PS-C03-12: FINGER-TO-TOE PULSE WAVE VELOCITY IN RESPONSE TO SITTING POSITION. (January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Philibert, Emy; Paré, Mathilde; Côté, Nadège; Fortier, Catherine; Goupil, Rémi; Obeid, Hasan; Agharazii, Mohsen
• Is Part Of: Journal of hypertension. Volume 41(2023)Supplement 1
• Page Start: e188
• Publication Date: 2023-01
• Subjects: Hypertension -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132005
• DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000914588.98285.52
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-5598

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: Aortic stiffness is a non-traditional risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality and is associated with increased central pulse pressure. It is generally measured by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) in a supine position. We hypothesized that, in a sitting position, the additional hydrostatic pressure exerted on the vascular wall could represent a vascular stress test. Two alternative methods can now estimate aortic stiffness and can be used conveniently in different positions: 1) brachial pulse wave analysis approach used by Mobil-O-Graph and 2) transit time approach using finger-to-toe PWV by photoplethysmography with the pOpmetre. The aim of the present study is to determine the impact of postural changes on PWV and central blood pressure estimation using these two distinct methods. Design and method: Central blood pressure and PWV were assessed in 20 healthy subjects using Mobil-O-Graph (PWV-M) and pOpmetre (PWV-pop) in three positions: supine in bed, supine in reclining chair and sitting. Central systolic blood pressure (SBP) was determined by calibration of brachial systolic and diastolic blood pressures by both methods (SBP-M and SBP-pop). Generalized estimating equations were used for analysis. Results: The PWV-M remained relatively constant and generally independent of the position (5.5 ± 1.0, 5.3 ± 1.0 and 5.5 ± 1.0 m/s). While PWV-M and PWV-pop were similar in the supine position (5.5 ± 1.0 vs 5.4 ± 1.3 m/s, P = NS), PWV-pop increased very significantly to 5.9 ± 1.5 m/s in supine in reclining chair position (P = 0.04), and to 9.2 ± 1.7 m/s in sitting position (P < 0.001). Central blood pressure estimation remained similar for SBP-M (110.2 ± 10.3 vs 106.9 ± 10.5 vs 108.8 ± 11.1 mmHg, P = NS) and for SBP-pop (107.7 ± 10.4 vs 110.3 ± 9.6 vs 109.5 ± 9.9 mmHg, P = NS). Conclusions: These results suggest that estimated PWV by brachial pulse wave analysis remains robust independent of position. However, the estimated finger-to-toe PWV by pulse transit time increases remarkably with the imposition of hydrostatic pressure on the vascular wall. We conclude that the finger-to-toe PWV may provide the opportunity to evaluated vascular wall property in a dynamic fashion using postural changes as a stress test.