Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Noninvasive peripheral vascular function and atrial fibrillation in the general population

Börschel, Christin S.a,*; Rübsamen, Nicolea; Ojeda, Francisco M.a; Wild, Philipp S.b,c,d,†; Hoffmann, Boris A.e; Prochaska, Jürgen H.b,c,†; Gori, Tommasof,†; Lackner, Karl J.g,†; Blankenberg, Stefana,*; Zeller, Tanjaa,*; Münzel, Thomasf,†,,‡; Schnabel, Renate B.a,*,,‡

doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002000
ORIGINAL PAPERS: Diagnosis
Open
SDC

Background: Arterial stiffness is a strong predictor of atrial fibrillation in the community. Whether noninvasively measured conduit artery function and peripheral vascular reactivity are related to atrial fibrillation remains unknown.

Methods and results: In 15 010 individuals of the population-based Gutenberg Health Study, mean age 55 ± 11 years, 50.5% men, we determined noninvasive vascular function by flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT) in relation to manifest atrial fibrillation (N = 466). Patients with atrial fibrillation exhibited a higher mean brachial artery diameter [4.81 mm (4.17, 5.33) in atrial fibrillation vs. 4.31 mm (3.67, 4.93)] and baseline pulse amplitude in arbitrary units [6.35 (5.76, 6.78) in atrial fibrillation vs. 6.09 (5.36, 6.71)] as well as a reduced FMD in arbitrary units [1.29 (1.26, 1.33) in atrial fibrillation vs. (1.31 (1.26, 1.37)] and PAT ratio [0.42 (0.19, 0.77) in atrial fibrillation vs. 0.67 (0.33, 0.94)] compared with individuals without atrial fibrillation (all PWilcoxon rank-sum test). In age-adjusted and sex-adjusted logistic regression analyses, only baseline brachial artery diameter [odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04–1.37; P = 0.012] and PAT ratio (OR 0.83; 0.74–0.94; P = 0.0029) were associated with atrial fibrillation. In risk factor and heart rate-adjusted models, there was no statistically significant correlation of atrial fibrillation and brachial artery diameter, FMD and PAT ratio while baseline pulse amplitude was reduced in individuals with atrial fibrillation (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.71–0.93; P = 0.0034).

Conclusion: In our large contemporary cohort, peripheral vascular function was compromised in individuals with atrial fibrillation. However, observed associations were mediated by age and classical risk factors. Noninvasive vascular function measures did not improve discriminatory ability for atrial fibrillation.

aDepartment of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center Hamburg, Hamburg

bPreventive Cardiology and Preventive Medicine, Center for Cardiology

cCenter for Thrombosis and Hemostasis

dCenter for Translational Vascular Biology (CTVB)

eDepartment of Cardiology II/Electrophysiology, Center of Cardiology

fCenter for Cardiology

gInstitute of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

Correspondence to Renate B. Schnabel, MD, MSc, Department of General and Interventional Cardiology, University Heart Center, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. Tel: +49 1522 2816064; e-mail: r.schnabel@uke.de

Abbreviations: AF, atrial fibrillation; CI, confidence interval; FMD, flow-mediated dilation; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; OR, odds ratio; PAT, peripheral arterial tonometry; SD, standard deviation

Received 30 May, 2018

Accepted 21 October, 2018

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website (http://www.jhypertension.com).

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

Back to Top | Article Outline

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation is increasingly common in the general population [1,2]. It is associated with serious complications such as stroke and heart failure [3–6]. However, risk of atrial fibrillation, morbidity and mortality of atrial fibrillation patients cannot be fully explained by these complications [7]. Evidence suggests an association between vascular dysfunction and atrial fibrillation [8,9]. For this reason, vascular dysfunction might need to be considered when assessing risk of prevalent atrial fibrillation and overall health status of atrial fibrillation individuals.

Vascular dysfunction is a systemic process related to cardiovascular prognosis [10]. As a major underlying substrate, classical cardiovascular risk factors including age, sex, smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia have been identified [11]. By creating a pro-inflammatory state and increasing oxidative stress, these risk factors contribute to increased arterial stiffness [12]. Coherently, there is a close relation between arterial stiffness and atrial fibrillation. After treatment of atrial fibrillation with cardioversion, relapse rates differed dependent on arterial stiffness [13]. Notably, arterial stiffness seems to be increased even in individuals with lone atrial fibrillation [14,15] and was identified as a predictor of atrial fibrillation [15,16].

Different vascular beds including conduit arteries and microvascular function play a significant role in cardiovascular homeostasis and disease. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery and peripheral arterial tonometry (PAT) measured by volume plethysmographic pulse amplitude registration are noninvasive vascular function measures that integrate structural changes, pulsatile blood flow characteristics and vascular reactivity. Both have been related to cardiovascular disease risk factors and outcome [17–19]. Furthermore, inflammation and oxidative stress are major determinants of vascular function [12]. Thus, the measurement of FMD and PAT may provide an integrated measure of vascular impairment and morbidity and predict the presence of atrial fibrillation [10].

On the basis of these considerations, we hypothesized that impaired vascular reactivity may contribute to an increased risk of atrial fibrillation and examined the association of noninvasively measured vascular function parameters and atrial fibrillation in our large community-based cohort.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

Study participants

Fifteen thousand and ten participants of the population-based Gutenberg Health Study enrolled at the Department of Medicine 2, University Medical Center Mainz, aged 35–74 years were eligible for analysis. A detailed study outline has been published previously [19]. In brief, during a clinic visit, comprehensive information on cardiovascular risk factors was acquired by standardized computer-assisted interview, anthropometric measures, surface electrocardiogram and noninvasive cardiovascular function testing. We categorized smoking into nonsmokers (never smokers and former smokers) and current smokers. The definition of diabetes mellitus constituted individuals who reported a physician diagnosis of diabetes and/or had an on-site fasting blood glucose concentration of at least 126 mg/dl (minimum 8-h fast) or a blood glucose level of at least 200 mg/dl at any time. Dyslipidemia was assumed when the participant knew about a physician's diagnosis of dyslipidemia and/or a low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein (LDL/HDL) cholesterol ratio of greater than 3.5 was measured on site. Hypertension was defined as antihypertensive drug treatment and/or a mean SBP of at least 140 mmHg and/or a mean DBP of at least 90 mmHg. Data on cardiac medication was collected by self-report. The diagnosis of atrial fibrillation was based on a history of atrial fibrillation and/or the 12-lead electrocardiogram (GE Cardiosoft) documentation of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter [20]. Atrial fibrillation was adjudicated by at least two cardiologists. In difficult cases, a third opinion by a physician trained in electrophysiology was obtained.

All participants provided written, informed consent. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee. All authors have read and approved the manuscript as written.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Vascular function measurement

FMD was measured according to recommendations using upper arm cuff occlusion for 5 min to determine brachial artery diameter at rest and after induction of reactive hyperemia [21]. Two-dimensional high-resolution ultrasonic images of the right brachial artery were acquired on a Philips HD11XE CV ultrasound machine (Philips, Best, The Netherlands). Loops recorded at baseline and 60 s after cuff release were saved digitally and analyzed semi-automatically on an offline workstation using a customized software package (Medical Imaging Applications LLC, Iowa City, Iowa, USA). As FMD was measured distal from the cuff occlusion, effects of ischemic dilation and endothelial stimulated dilation caused by high-flow-induced shear stress cannot completely be distinguished. Nevertheless, upper arm occlusion has been described as a routinely used technique in FMD measurement and offers several advantages compared with placement of the cuff on the forearm, for example, a greater percentage change in diameter in reactive hyperemia [21].

PAT was assessed by pneumatic pulse amplitude recorded by the Endo-PAT2000 device (Itamar Medical, Caesarea, Israel). Pulse amplitude was continuously registered in both index fingers with the left index finger as a control. Data were automatically transformed by a computerized algorithm.

For the present investigation, we excluded individuals with missing vascular function measures, bad image quality and technically inadequate studies (insufficient flow occlusion, occlusion for less than 5 min, incomplete data acquisition). N = 12 435 participants with FMD and 10 977 individuals with PAT measurements (84 and 74% of enrolled attendees, respectively) were included for analysis. Inter-observer intra class correlation coefficients of baseline brachial artery diameter and hyperemic brachial artery diameter were 0.87–0.95 and 0.90–0.93 suggesting a good reproducibility of vascular function parameters in our laboratory [19]. The inter-observer intra class correlation coefficient of PAT ratio was 0.62–0.67 and thus slightly lower compared with previous reports [19,22].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical methods

Data were analyzed for the total sample and for the subsample of individuals with atrial fibrillation. Continuous data are presented as median and quartiles and binary data as absolute and relative frequencies. Logistic regressions were computed for each vascular function parameter as the independent variable of interest to relate vascular function measures to atrial fibrillation history. The models were adjusted for age, sex, and additionally for heart rate, current smoking, BMI, SBP, diabetes and LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio. Values are shown as odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation (SD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

FMD (%) is dependent on baseline brachial artery diameter (Dbase). We performed a linear regression analysis with peak brachial artery diameter as dependent variable, baseline brachial artery diameter as independent variable, and sex as interaction variable. From this regression model, we derived separate allometric exponents for men and for women. Individual Dbase-adjusted FMD was calculated as Dpeak/Dbaseallometricexponent[23]. This FMD measure is not dependent on Dbase anymore.

We further estimated the area under the curve using bootstrap correction with 1000 bootstrap samples each on models based on clinical variables of the Framingham risk score (age, age2, sex, male sex × age2, BMI, SBP, antihypertensive medication, congestive heart failure, congestive heart failure × age) [24] and vascular function parameters in multivariable-adjusted analyses to assess the additive discriminative ability of the vascular function parameters. We assumed a two-sided P < 0.05 as statistically significant.

Analyses were performed using R software, Version 3.5.1 (R Core Team, 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

The median age of the overall cohort was 55.0 (46.0, 65.0) years, 50.5% were men. N = 466 study participants had atrial fibrillation, 3.1% of the total sample. Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and vascular function measures distribution resembled a middle-aged community sample Table 1.

TABLE 1

TABLE 1

Boxplots of brachial artery diameter of study participants with and without atrial fibrillation revealed a statistically significant higher baseline brachial artery diameter of study participants with atrial fibrillation (Fig. 1). Median diameter measured 4.81 (4.17, 5.33) mm compared with 4.31 (3.67, 4.93) mm in study participants without atrial fibrillation (P < 0.001). Baseline pulse amplitude showed higher values in atrial fibrillation cases, 6.35 (5.76, 6.78) arbitrary units vs. 6.09 (5.36, 6.71) arbitrary units in nonatrial fibrillation cases (P < 0.001). Vascular function reactivity was significantly altered in atrial fibrillation cases: median FMD was reduced to 1.29 (1.26, 1.33) arbitrary units in atrial fibrillation individuals compared with 1.31 (1.26, 1.33) arbitrary units in nonatrial fibrillation individuals (P < 0.001). Sex-specific subgroup analysis showed no significant differences in FMD in atrial fibrillation and nonatrial fibrillation cases (Supplemental Digital Content Table 1 and 2, http://links.lww.com/HJH/B39, Supplemental Digital Content Figure 1 and 2, http://links.lww.com/HJH/B39). PAT ratio was lower in atrial fibrillation compared with nonatrial fibrillation individuals [0.42 (0.19, 0.77) vs. 0.67 (0.33, 0.94); P < 0.001].

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

ORs per SD of vascular function variables for multivariable-adjusted associations with atrial fibrillation are provided in Table 2. In the age-adjusted and sex-adjusted model, baseline brachial artery diameter was related to atrial fibrillation with a 19% higher odds (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04–1.37, P = 0.012). This association is mainly because of the female subgroup (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05–1.74, P = 0.018) as shown in Supplemental Digital Content Table 1, http://links.lww.com/HJH/B39, Supplemental Digital Content Figure 1, http://links.lww.com/HJH/B39. PAT ratio was inversely associated with atrial fibrillation (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74–0.94, P = 0.0029) in the age-adjusted and sex-adjusted model.

TABLE 2

TABLE 2

After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and heart rate statistical significance was lost for associations between study participants with and without atrial fibrillation for baseline brachial artery diameter, FMD and PAT ratio as shown in Table 2. The only vascular parameter still significantly differing after risk factor and heart rate adjustment was baseline pulse amplitude. The direction of association changed. Baseline pulse amplitude was related to atrial fibrillation with a 19% lower odds (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70–0.93, P = 0.0025). These findings can most likely be explained by negative confounding by sex and/or age. Additional adjustment for cardiac medication did not change the results markedly.

Subgroup analysis of individuals with atrial fibrillation during investigation revealed no difference in vascular function parameters after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, as shown in Supplemental Digital Content Table 3, http://links.lww.com/HJH/B39, Supplemental Digital Content Figure 3, http://links.lww.com/HJH/B39.

No improvement in the area under the curve beyond traditional risk factors combined in the Framingham Risk Score was observed. The corrected area under the curve reached 0.79 for cardiovascular risk factors alone (95% CI 0.773–0.813) as well as in the respective combination with the baseline brachial artery diameter (95% CI 0.769–0.811), baseline pulse amplitude (95% CI 0.774–0.818) or PAT ratio (95% CI 0.771–0.818) and 0.80 in combination with the FMD (95% CI 0.769–0.818).

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

Principal findings

In the community sample of the Gutenberg Health Study impaired vascular function with a higher baseline pulse amplitude, a higher baseline brachial artery diameter and a decreased FMD as well as PAT ratio was observed in participants with atrial fibrillation. These associations were driven by classical cardiovascular risk factors as statistical significance was lost after covariate adjustment. No improvement in discrimination for atrial fibrillation prediction was achieved.

Our results are in slight contrast to previous studies correlating atrial fibrillation with impaired vascular reactivity [25–27]. Whereas in our sample, we observed a correlation between reduced vascular function and atrial fibrillation, the association was no longer statistically significant after risk factor adjustment. In a prior study, individuals with persistent atrial fibrillation showed clearly reduced FMD, even in individuals without accompanying cardiovascular risk factors [26]. Furthermore, a lower FMD was related to an increased risk of incident atrial fibrillation in addition to classical cardiovascular risk factors [27]. Differences in study design and patient characteristics may account for different conclusions. Prior studies included patients with persistent atrial fibrillation [26] whereas in our study all types of atrial fibrillation in the community were used. FMD may be impaired more significantly in patients with long-lasting arrhythmia. However, restricting our analyses to individuals with atrial fibrillation on the study ECG, and thus a presumably higher atrial fibrillation burden did not change the results markedly.

It has been suggested that irregular stroke volume and consequently disturbed pulsatile blood flow as induced by atrial fibrillation may cause endothelial dysfunction [28]. Whereas laminar shear stress on the vascular wall is required for regular nitric oxide production, a beat-to-beat variation in flow dynamics in atrial fibrillation has less favorable effects on the vascular wall, changes rheology, and reduces vascular responsiveness [29]. In addition, atrial dysfunction in atrial fibrillation is known to create a pro-inflammatory state [30] and enhance oxidative stress [31,32], which both impact vascular homeostasis [33,34]. In manifest atrial fibrillation, higher levels of biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction have been reported [35,36]. Furthermore, atrial fibrillation is characterized by enhanced activity of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system and accompanied by elevated neurohumoral activation mirrored by natriuretic peptide concentration [37] that are also related to vascular function [38]. Appropriately, restoration of sinus rhythm after cardioversion improves FMD [39]. Similarly, catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation enhanced vascular reactivity measured by FMD [40,41].

However, in our cohort, no strong associations between vascular reactivity and atrial fibrillation can be found. Adjustment for classical risk factors, even without accounting for often co-existent cardiac dysfunction that is strongly related to vascular impairment [42–45], resulted in a loss of statistical significance of the association. Therefore, our cross-sectional associations are primarily explained by age and the underlying risk factor burden. In line with our observations, endothelial dysfunction was more pronounced in individuals with atrial fibrillation and comorbidities than in lone atrial fibrillation [46]. Moreover, advantage of cardioversion on endothelial function correlates inversely with underlying comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension [47]. In the Gutenberg Health Study, our analysis of risk factors revealed that age is closely correlated with peripheral vascular function, but also with the lifetime disease atrial fibrillation. We, therefore, assume major confounding of our associations of vascular function with atrial fibrillation by age. Furthermore, as a risk factor example, hypertension is one of the strongest correlates of vascular dysfunction [19]. It also ranges among the common risk factors for atrial fibrillation [48]. Longstanding blood pressure elevation increases the risk for vascular stiffening and dysfunction. Vascular stiffness reflected by pulse pressure has also been identified as a major predictor of atrial fibrillation [8]. These close pathophysiological relations show the complexity of the associations and may help to understand possible cross-correlations and confounding. A first smaller examination in a community cohort demonstrated that smaller FMD values may be associated with higher incidence rates of atrial fibrillation [25]. Again, it cannot be excluded that vascular function may only be a surrogate for risk factor burden and comorbidities.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Limitations and strengths

In our cross-sectional data, we cannot draw conclusions on the causal pathways as we cannot exclude reverse causation of the impact of atrial fibrillation on vascular dysfunction. Due to variations of cardiac cycle length in atrial fibrillation, measurement of brachial artery diameter may be less precise. To avoid inaccurate results, measurements were repeated semi-automatically three times over three cycles and previous reports suggest sufficient reliability in ongoing atrial fibrillation [39]. Another limitation is the lack of assessment of endothelium-independent response as application of medication to healthy individuals in our cohort was not permitted. Furthermore, we may have missed small, pathophysiologically relevant associations. However, in our large data set, we had good power to show moderate-to-strong effect sizes that would be of clinical relevance. Prospective studies need to be designed to understand the temporal relations of vascular dysfunction measured by FMD and PAT in relation to incident atrial fibrillation.

Among the strengths of the study are the large population-based sample with availability of standardized noninvasive vascular function measurements. FMD and PAT ratio were generated following standard operating procedures based on technical considerations by Flammer et al.[49]. Further, we had the opportunity to perform careful adjustment for known confounders.

In conclusion, our study confirms impaired peripheral vascular function measured by commonly used noninvasive techniques, FMD and PAT, in atrial fibrillation individuals. The associations can be attributed to age and the underlying cardiovascular risk factor burden. Vascular dysfunction, thus, may reflect general morbidity in atrial fibrillation. On the basis of our data, FMD and PAT ratio do not appear to provide additional benefit in risk assessment for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the participants and dedicated study staff of the Gutenberg Health Study for their generous contribution of time and efforts.

Sources of funding: The Gutenberg Health Study is funded through the government of Rhineland-Palatinate (‘Stiftung Rheinland-Pfalz für Innovation,’ contract AZ 961-386261/733), the research programs ‘Wissen schafft Zukunft’ and ‘Center for Translational Vascular Biology (CTVB)’ of the Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, and its contract with Boehringer Ingelheim and PHILIPS Medical Systems, including an unrestricted grant for the Gutenberg Health Study. P.S.W. and J.H.P. are funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01EO1503). This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 648131). This work was performed in the context of the Junior Research Alliance symAtrial project funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF 01ZX1408A) e:Med – Systems Medicine program (R.B.S., T.Z.). This work was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) Emmy Noether Program SCHN 1149/3-1 (R.B.S.). T.Z., S.B., P.S.W. and T.M. are principal investigators of the German Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK).

Disclosure: none.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Miyasaka Y, Barnes ME, Gersh BJ, Cha SS, Bailey KR, Abhayaratna WP, et al. Secular trends in incidence of atrial fibrillation in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1980 to 2000, and implications on the projections for future prevalence. Circulation 2006; 114:119–125.
2. Stefansdottir H, Aspelund T, Gudnason V, Arnar DO. Trends in the incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation in Iceland and future projections. Europace 2011; 13:1110–1117.
3. Wang TJ, Larson MG, Levy D, Vasan RS, Leip EP, Wolf PA, et al. Temporal relations of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and their joint influence on mortality: the Framingham heart study. Circulation 2003; 107:2920–2925.
4. Shinbane JS, Wood MA, Jensen DN, Ellenbogen KA, Fitzpatrick AP, Scheinman MM. Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy: a review of animal models and clinical studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29:709–715.
5. Friberg J, Buch P, Scharling H, Gadsbphioll N, Jensen GB. Rising rates of hospital admissions for atrial fibrillation. Epidemiology 2003; 14:666–672.
6. Stewart S, Hart CL, Hole DJ, McMurray JJ. Population prevalence, incidence, and predictors of atrial fibrillation in the Renfrew/Paisley study. Heart 2001; 86:516–521.
7. Benjamin EJ, Wolf PA, D’Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Kannel WB, Levy D. Impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of death: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 1998; 98:946–952.
8. Mitchell GF, Vasan RS, Keyes MJ, Parise H, Wang TJ, Larson MG, et al. Pulse pressure and risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation. JAMA 2007; 297:709–715.
9. Heeringa J. Subclinical atherosclerosis and risk of atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167:382–387.
10. Widlansky ME, Gokce N, Keaney JF, Vita JA. The clinical implications of endothelial dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:1149–1160.
11. Donnell CJO, Elosua R. Cardiovascular risk factors. Insights from Framingham Heart. Rev Española Cardiol 2008; 61:299–310.
12. Münzel T, Sinning C, Post F, Warnholtz A, Schulz E. Pathophysiology, diagnosis and prognostic implications of endothelial dysfunction. Ann Med 2008; 40:180–196.
13. Fumagalli S, Giannini I, Pupo S, Agostini F, Boni S, Roberts AT, et al. Atrial fibrillation after electrical cardioversion in elderly patients: a role for arterial stiffness? Results from a preliminary study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2016; 28:1273–1277.
14. Chen LY, Leening MJG, Norby FL, Roetker NS, Hofman A, Franco OH, et al. Carotid intima-media thickness and arterial stiffness and the risk of atrial fibrillation: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study, Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Rotterdam Study. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5:e002907.
15. Lau DH, Middeldorp ME, Brooks AG, Ganesan AN, Roberts-Thomson KC, Stiles MK, et al. Aortic stiffness in lone atrial fibrillation: a novel risk factor for arrhythmia recurrence. PLoS One 2013; 8:e76776.
16. Cremer A, Lainé M, Papaioannou G, Yeim S, Gosse P. Increased arterial stiffness is an independent predictor of atrial fibrillation in hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 2015; 33:2150–2155.
17. Yeboah J, Folsom AR, Burke GL, Johnson C, Polak JF, Post W, et al. Predictive value of brachial flow-mediated dilation for incident cardiovascular events in a population-based study: the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Circulation 2009; 120:502–509.
18. Bonetti PO, Pumper GM, Higano ST, Holmes DR, Kuvin JT, Lerman A. Noninvasive identification of patients with early coronary atherosclerosis by assessment of digital reactive hyperemia. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:2137–2141.
19. Schnabel RB, Schulz A, Wild PS, Sinning CR, Wilde S, Eleftheriadis M, et al. Noninvasive vascular function measurement in the community cross-sectional relations and comparison of methods. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2011; 4:371–380.
20. Camm AJ, Kirchhof P, Lip GYH, Schotten U, Savelieva I, Ernst S, et al. Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation: the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Europace 2010; 12:1360–1420.
21. Corretti MC, Anderson TJ, Benjamin EJ, Celermajer D, Charbonneau F, Creager MA, et al. International Brachial Artery Reactivity Task Force. Guidelines for the ultrasound assessment of endothelial-dependent flow-mediated vasodilation of the brachial artery: a report of the international brachial artery reactivity task force. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39:257–265.
22. Selamet Tierney ES, Newburger JW, Gauvreau K, Geva J, Coogan E, Colan SD, et al. Endothelial pulse amplitude testing: feasibility and reproducibility in adolescents. J Pediatr 2009; 154:901–905.
23. Atkinson G, Batterham AM, Thijssen DHJ, Green DJ. A new approach to improve the specificity of flow-mediated dilation for indicating endothelial function in cardiovascular research. J Hypertens 2013; 31:287–291.
24. Schnabel RB, Aspelund T, Li G, Sullivan LM, Suchy-Dicey A, Harris TB, et al. Validation of an atrial fibrillation risk algorithm in whites and African Americans. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:1909–1917.
25. O’Neal WT, Efird JT, Yeboah J, Nazarian S, Alonso A, Heckbert SR, et al. Brachial flow-mediated dilation and incident atrial fibrillation the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2014; 34:2717–2720.
26. Polovina M, Potpara T, Giga V, Stepanovic J, Ostojic M. Impaired endothelial function in lone atrial fibrillation. Vojn Pregl 2013; 70:908–914.
27. Shaikh AY, Wang N, Yin X, Larson MG, Vasan RS, Hamburg NM, et al. Relations of arterial stiffness and brachial flow-mediated dilation with new-onset atrial fibrillation. Hypertension 2016; 68:590–596.
28. Takahashi N, Ishibashi Y, Shimada T, Sakane T, Ohata S, Sugamori T, et al. Atrial fibrillation impairs endothelial function of forearm vessels in humans. J Card Fail 2001; 7:45–54.
29. Cai H, Li Z, Goette A, Mera F, Honeycutt C, Feterik K, et al. Downregulation of endocardial nitric oxide synthase expression and nitric oxide production in atrial fibrillation: Potential mechanisms for atrial thrombosis and stroke. Circulation 2002; 106:2854–2858.
30. Engelmann MDM, Svendsen JH. Inflammation in the genesis and perpetuation of atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2005; 26:2083–2092.
31. Korantzopoulos P, Kolettis TM, Galaris D, Goudevenos JA. The role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis and perpetuation of atrial fibrillation. Int J Cardiol 2007; 115:135–143.
32. Dudley SC, Hoch NE, McCann LA, Honeycutt C, Diamandopoulos L, Fukai T, et al. Atrial fibrillation increases production of superoxide by the left atrium and left atrial appendage: role of the NADPH and xanthine oxidases. Circulation 2005; 112:1266–1273.
33. Vita JA, Keaney JF, Larson MG, Keyes MJ, Massaro JM, Lipinska I, et al. Brachial artery vasodilator function and systemic inflammation in the framingham offspring study. Circulation 2004; 110:3604–3609.
34. Heitzer T, Schlinzig T, Krohn K, Meinertz T, Munzel T. Endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2001; 104:2673–2678.
35. Ehrlich JR, Kaluzny M, Baumann S, Lehmann R, Hohnloser SH. Biomarkers of structural remodelling and endothelial dysfunction for prediction of cardiovascular events or death in patients with atrial fibrillation. Clin Res Cardiol 2011; 100:1029–1036.
36. Schnabel RB, Wild PS, Wilde S, Ojeda FM, Schulz A, Zeller T, et al. Multiple biomarkers and atrial fibrillation in the general population. PLoS One 2014; 9:e112486.
37. Dixen U, Ravn L, Soeby-Rasmussen C, Paulsen AW, Parner J, Frandsen E, et al. Raised plasma aldosterone and natriuretic peptides in atrial fibrillation. Cardiology 2007; 108:35–39.
38. Kathiresan S, Gona P, Larson MG, Vita JA, Mitchell GF, Tofler GH, et al. Cross-sectional relations of multiple biomarkers from distinct biological pathways to brachial artery endothelial function. Circulation 2006; 113:938–945.
39. Skalidis EI, Zacharis Ea, Tsetis DK, Pagonidis K, Chlouverakis G, Yarmenitis S, et al. Endothelial cell function during atrial fibrillation and after restoration of sinus rhythm. Am J Cardiol 2007; 99:1258–1262.
40. Shin SY, Na JO, Lim HE, Choi CU, Choi JIl, Kim SH, et al. Improved endothelial function in patients with atrial fibrillation through maintenance of sinus rhythm by successful catheter ablation. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2011; 22:376–382.
41. Yoshino S, Yoshikawa A, Hamasaki S, Ishida S, Oketani N, Saihara K, et al. Atrial fibrillation-induced endothelial dysfunction improves after restoration of sinus rhythm. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168:1280–1285.
42. Katz SD, Biasucci L, Sabba C, Strom JA, Jondeau G, Galvao M, et al. Impaired endothelium-mediated vasodilation in the peripheral vasculature of patients with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992; 19:918–925.
43. Kubo SH, Rector TS, Bank AJ, Williams RE, Heifetz SM. Endothelium-dependent vasodilation is attenuated in patients with heart failure. Circulation 1991; 84:1589–1596.
44. Lee JF, Barrett-O’Keefe Z, Garten RS, Nelson AD, Ryan JJ, Nativi JN, et al. Evidence of microvascular dysfunction in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Heart 2016; 102:278–284.
45. Maréchaux S, Samson R, van Belle E, Breyne J, de Monte J, Dédrie C, et al. Vascular and microvascular endothelial function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Card Fail 2016; 22:3–11.
46. Guazzi M, Berti M, Belletti S, Reina G, Guazzi MD. Exercise metaboreflex activation and endothelial function impairment in atrial fibrillation. Am J Physiol Circ Physiol 2006; 291:H2396–H2402.
47. Guazzi M, Belletti S, Bianco E, Lenatti L, Guazzi MD. Endothelial dysfunction and exercise performance in lone atrial fibrillation or associated with hypertension or diabetes: different results with cardioversion. Am J Physiol Circ Physiol 2006; 291:H921–H928.
48. Alonso A, Krijthe BP, Aspelund T, Stepas KA, Pencina MJ, Moser CB, et al. Simple risk model predicts incidence of atrial fibrillation in a racially and geographically diverse population: the CHARGE-atrial fibrillation Consortium. J Am Heart Assoc 2013; 2:e000102–e1102.
49. Flammer AJ, Anderson T, Celermajer DS, Mark A, Deanfield J, Ganz P, et al. The assessment of endothelial function - from research into clinical practice. Circulation 2012; 126:753–767.

* DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Hamburg/Kiel/Luebeck, Germany.

† DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Rhine-Main, Mainz, Germany.

‡ Thomas Münzel and Renate B. Schnabel contributed equally to the writing of the article.

Keywords:

atrial fibrillation; epidemiology; flow-mediated dilation; noninvasive vascular function; peripheral arterial tonometry; population-based study

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.