Skip to main content
. 2021 Feb 9;34(7):737–743. doi: 10.1093/ajh/hpab028

Table 3.

Final regression models for the associations of ΔcPWV and ΔcPWVcorr, as well as ΔE and ΔEcorr with ΔMAP

ΔcPWV ΔcPWVcorr
β (95% CI)
(m/s/mm Hg)
P value β (95% CI)
(m/s/mm Hg)
P value
Crude 0.023 (0.000; 0.045) 0.047 −0.018 (−0.040; 0.003) 0.091
Model 2 0.027 (0.005; 0.050) 0.019 −0.018 (−0.039; 0.004) 0.105
Model 3 0.026 (0.002; 0.050) 0.035 −0.019 (−0.042; 0.004) 0.104
ΔE ΔEcorr
Crude 0.007 (0.003; 0.012) 0.001 −0.001 (−0.005; 0.002) 0.446
Model 2 0.007 (0.003; 0.011) 0.001 −0.002 (−0.005; 0.002) 0.398
Model 3 0.007 (0.002; 0.012) 0.003 −0.002 (−0.006; 0.002) 0.350

Abbreviations: Δ denotes (follow-up valuebaseline value)/(follow-up time in years)β, unstandardized regression coefficient; BMI, body mass index; CI, 95% confidence interval; cPWV, carotid pulse wave velocity; cPWVcorr, pressure-corrected cPWV according to equation (S1); E, Young’s modulus; Ecorr, pressure-corrected Young’s modulus according to equation (S6); MAP, mean arterial pressure. For ΔcPWV model 2: crude model + ΔIMT, ΔHR, use of antihypertensive drugs at the first visit. Model 3: model 2 + age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, diabetes status, and hypercholesterolemia. For ΔE model 2: crude model + ΔHR and use of antihypertensive drugs at the first visit. Model 3: model 2 + age, sex, smoking status, BMI, diabetes status, and hypercholesterolemia. In models 2 and 3 for ΔcPWV the change in intima–media thickness ΔIMT was used. Correspondingly, in the models for ΔcPWVcorr the pressure-corrected ΔIMTcorr was used.