In vivo determinants of arterial biophysical properties: methodological considerations: (Reply to Lehmann and Gosling)

Abstract

Dear Sir,We do not believe that there is much value in continuing a correspondence now only vaguely related to a study published more than 2 years ago [1]. The report in question was a cross sectional study of a large group of ethnic Chinese subjects in whom ultrasound of the aorta with conventional cardiac echocardiographic equipment and pulse wave velocity were used to examine arterial properties. No interventions took place or were planned subsequent to the initial investigation. We prefer to rely on conventional peer review rather than publish findings in letters and commentaries not generally subject to such evaluation. There are, however, two points we wish to make on this occassion. Firstly to correct the impression that the use of conventional echocardiography equipment and transthoracic techniques to assess the stiffness of the proximal aorta is a technical approach limited to ourselves. It has been used in a number of peer reviewed articles from other groups [2–9]and we refer interested readers to these for further information, including data on measurement variability. It also appears that our recent comments on the use of pulse wave velocity [10]have been somewhat misconstrued. We did not criticise this technique but stressed that it was one of a number of techniques available and stated `that techniques are available which, in specific cases, may be more pathophysiologically relevant than measurement of PWV'. We still believe this to be the case.