LAUSR

OBJECTIVES Aortic distensibility estimation of local aortic stiffness is based on local aortic strains and central pulse pressure (cPP) measurements. Most MRI studies used either brachial PP (bPP) despite differences with cPP, or direct cPP estimates obtained after MRI examination, assuming no major pressure variations. We evaluated the feasibility of assessment of cPP with a specific device fitted with a 6 m long hose (study1) and looked at the influence of using such cPP within the magnet instead of bPP on aortic distensibility in a control population (study 2). METHODS Brachial and central pressures values were recorded with the SphygmoCor XCEL system fitted with 2 and 6 m long tubing randomly assigned on arms. A 6 m long tubing was used in the second study to measure aortic distensibility with MRI. Aortic distensibility was calculated using either bPP (bAD) or cPP (cAD). RESULTS Study1, performed on 38 patients (mean age: 43 ± 17 years), showed no statistical difference between bPP and cPP measured with 2 or 6 m long tubing (0.41 ± 4.45 and 0.78 ± 3.18 mmHg, respectively, both P = ns). In study 2, cAD provided statistically higher values than bAD (1.87 ± 1.43 10 · mmHg, P < 0.001) especially in younger individuals (3.28 ± 0.86 10 · mmHg). The correlation between age and aortic distensibility was stronger with cAD (r = -0.92; P < 0,001) than with bAD (r = -0.88; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION cPP can be estimated with reasonable accuracy during MRI acquisition using a 6 m long tube. Using either cPP or bPP greatly influences aortic distensibility values, especially in young individuals in whom an accurate detection of early or accelerated vascular aging can be of major importance.