The Vicorder is a new brachial cuff-based device that estimates central blood pressure (cBP) using a brachial-to-aortic transfer function. The aim of this study was to evaluate cBP estimated by the Vicorder. During cardiac angiography, cBP estimated by the Vicorder and the SphygmoCor was evaluated against simultaneous invasive cBP in 50 patients. The two devices were also compared noninvasively in a separate group of 90 healthy individuals. Central SBP (cSBP) obtained with each device satisfied the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation accuracy criteria when peripheral waveforms were calibrated to invasive mean arterial pressure (MAP)/DBP: estimated - invasive cSBP difference, -4.0 ± 7.4 mmHg, Vicorder, P < 0.001; -1.4 ± 7.9 mmHg, SphygmoCor, P = 0.21. When oscillometric brachial SBP/DBP was used for peripheral waveform calibration, cSBP was underestimated by Vicorder (Δ -6.4 ± 7.4 mmHg, P < 0.001 versus invasive) and more so by SphygmoCor (Δ -11.9 ± 7.2 mmHg, P < 0.001 versus invasive). Conversely, cSBP was more closely estimated by SphygmoCor when waveforms were calibrated to brachial MAP/DBP (Δ -2.8 ± 9.4 mmHg, P = 0.04 versus invasive). In the noninvasive study, Vicorder cSBP correlated well with SphygmoCor cSBP when SphygmoCor waveforms were calibrated to brachial MAP/DBP (121 ± 16 versus 121 ± 17 mmHg, P = 0.2) but not when brachial SBP/DBP was used for calibration (115 ± 19 mmHg, P < 0.001). The Vicorder and SphygmoCor devices provide reliable estimates of cSBP when calibrated to invasive pressure. When calibrated to brachial BP, both devices underestimated cSBP, although this was attenuated when SphygmoCor was calibrated to brachial MAP/DBP. Vicorder may be a simple alternative to tonometry-based methods for noninvasive assessment of cBP.

Very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets (VLCKDs) are an emerging nutritional treatment for severe obesity and are associated with a significant improvement in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Little is known about the effect of sex differences on weight loss induced by following a VLCKD. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of sex differences on weight loss and NAFLD improvement in patients with severe obesity undergoing a VLCKD. Forty-two females and 28 males with severe obesity underwent a 25-day VLCKD. Anthropometric parameters, bioimpedentiometry, degree of liver steatosis measured by ultrasonography, liver function tests, and glucose homeostasis were measured before and after the VLCKD. Males experienced a significantly larger excess body weight loss (EBWL) and a greater reduction in γ-glutamyl transferase (γGT) than females. Dividing the female group by menopausal status, a significant difference between males and pre-menopausal females was found for both EBWL and γGT. No significant difference between groups was observed for improvement in the Edmonton stage or in the degree of steatosis. We conclude that the efficacy of following a VLCKD in severe obesity is affected by sex differences and, for females, by menopausal status. Males seem to experience larger benefits than females in terms of EBWL and NAFLD improvement. These differences are attenuated after menopause, probably because of changes in hormonal profile and body composition.

This review critiques the literature supporting clinical assessment and management of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular disease risk stratification with brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV). First, we outline what baPWV actually measures—arterial stiffness of both large central elastic arteries and medium-sized muscular peripheral arteries of the lower limb. Second, we argue that baPWV is not a surrogate for carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity. While both measures are dependent on the properties of the aorta, baPWV is also strongly dependent on the muscular arteries of the lower extremities. Increased lower-extremity arterial stiffness amplifies and hastens wave reflections at the level of the aorta, widens pulse pressure, increases afterload, and reduces coronary perfusion. Third, we used an established evaluation framework to identify the value of baPWV as an independent vascular biomarker. There is sufficient evidence to support (1) proof of concept; (2) prospective validation; (3) incremental value; and (4) clinical utility. However, there is limited or no evidence to support (5) clinical outcomes; (6) cost-effectiveness; (8) methodological consensus; or (9) reference values. Fourth, we address future research requirements. The majority of the evaluation criteria, (1) proof of concept, (2) prospective validation, (3) incremental value, (4) clinical utility and (9) reference values, can be supported using existing cohort datasets, whereas the (5) clinical outcomes and (6) cost-effectiveness criteria require prospective investigation. The (8) methodological consensus criteria will require an expert consensus statement. Finally, we finish this review by providing an example of a future clinical practice model.