AJP - Heart Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol (October 16, 2009). doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00228.2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
297/6/H2182    most recent
00228.2009v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hopkins, N. D.
Right arrow Articles by George, K. P.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hopkins, N. D.
Right arrow Articles by George, K. P.
Submitted on March 6, 2009
Revised on September 4, 2009
Accepted on September 28, 2009

Does conduit artery diameter vary according to the anthropometric characteristics of children or men?

Nicola D. Hopkins1*, Daniel J. Green1, Toni M. Tinken1, Laura Sutton1, Nicola McWhannell1, Dick H.J. Thijssen2, Tim Cable3, Gareth Stratton1, and Keith P. George4

1 Liverpool John Moores University
2 University Medical Centre Nijmegen
3 Liverpool John Moores University, UK
4 Liverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpool John Moores

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: spsnhopk{at}livjm.ac.uk.

Introduction: Arterial measurements are commonly undertaken to assess acute and chronic adaptations to exercise. Despite the widespread adoption of scaling practices in cardiac research, the relevance of scaling for body size and/or composition has not been addressed for arterial measures. We therefore investigated relationships between brachial artery diameter and body composition in 129 children aged 9-10 (75, 54), and 50 men aged 16-49. Methods: Body composition variables (total, lean and fat mass in the whole body, arm and forearm) were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and brachial artery diameter was measured using high-resolution ultrasound. Bivariate correlations were performed and then arterial diameter was scaled using simple ratios (y/x) and allometric approaches after log-log least squares linear regression and production of allometric exponents (b) and construction of power function ratios (y/xb). Size independence was checked via bivariate correlations (x:y/x; x:y/xb) Results: Significant correlations existed between brachial artery diameter and measures of body mass and lean mass in both cohorts (r=0.21-0.48, P<0.05). There were no significant relationships between diameter and fat mass. All b-exponents were significantly different from 1 (0.08-0.50), suggesting that simple ratio scaling approaches were likely to be flawed. This was confirmed when ratio scaling produced negative residual size correlations, whereas allometric scaling produced size-independent indices (r=0.00 to 0.03, P>0.05). Conclusion: When performing between or within group comparisons under circumstances where it is important to control for differences in body size or composition, allometric scaling of artery diameter should be adopted rather than ratio scaling. Our data also suggest that scaling for lean or total mass may be more appropriate than scaling for indices of fat mass.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 1977 by the American Physiological Society.