Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPeretz, Alonen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeotta, Daniel F.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSullivan, Jeffrey H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTrenga, Carol A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSands, Fiona N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorAulet, Mary R.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPaun, Marlaen_US
dc.contributor.authorGill, Edward A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKaufman, Joel D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2010-04-21T15:56:38Z
dc.date.available2010-04-21T15:56:38Z
dc.date.issued2007en_US
dc.identifier.citationPeretz A, Leotta D, Sullivan J, et al. Flow mediated dilation of the brachial artery: an investigation of methods requiring further standardization. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2007;7(1):11.en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1186/1471-2261-7-11en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/7/11en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1773/15779
dc.description.abstractBackground: In order to establish a consistent method for brachial artery reactivity assessment, we analyzed commonly used approaches to the test and their effects on the magnitude and timecourse of flow mediated dilation (FMD), and on test variability and repeatability. As a popular and noninvasive assessment of endothelial function, several different approaches have been employed to measure brachial artery reactivity with B-mode ultrasound. Despite some efforts, there remains a lack of defined normal values and large variability in measurement technique. Methods: Twenty-six healthy volunteers underwent repeated brachial artery diameter measurements by B-mode ultrasound. Following baseline diameter recordings we assessed endothelium-dependent flow mediated dilation by inflating a blood pressure cuff either on the upper arm (proximal) or on the forearm (distal). Results: Thirty-seven measures were performed using proximal occlusion and 25 with distal occlusion. Following proximal occlusion relative to distal occlusion, FMD was larger (16.2 [plus or minus]1.2% vs. 7.3 [plus or minus] 0.9%, p less than 0.0001) and elongated (107.2 s vs. 67.8 s, p = 0.0001). Measurement of the test repeatability showed that differences between the repeated measures were greater on average when the measurements were done using the proximal method as compared to the distal method (2.4%; 95% CI 0.5-4.3; p = 0.013). Conclusion: These findings suggest that forearm compression holds statistical advantages over upper arm compression. Added to documented physiological and practical reasons, we propose that future studies should use forearm compression in the assessment of endothelial function.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSupport for this study was provided by grant R830954 and R827355 from the Environmental Protection Agency and grant M01RR-00037 from the National Institute of Health and ES013195 from the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.titleFlow mediated dilation of the brachial artery: an investigation of methods requiring further standardizationen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record