Comment on “The Relationship Between Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness Index and Incident Atrial Fibrillation”
Mustafa Candemir, Emrullah Kızıltunç

Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
- —The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention · Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies · Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
We read with great interest this observational cohort study with a median duration of 4 years by Boos et al. [1]. In this study, ambulatory arterial stiffness index (AASI) was found to be an independent predictor of the development of AF [1]. First of all, we would like to congratulate the authors of this article for raising awareness that parameters (such as AASI) obtained from ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) have independent predictive value in many important diseases [2, 3]. We thought some points should be clarified so we decided to add some helpful comments on this article.
It is known that the diagnosis duration of patients with diseases like hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes may affect AASI, which provides information about arterial stiffness [3, 4]. Therefore, was there a statistically significant difference between the diagnosis duration of these diseases (hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes) in the AF and non‐AF groups?
In addition, the incidence of heart failure and ischemic stroke was higher in the AF group in the study. We know that these diseases have an impact on AASI [2]. Therefore, we think that it would be appropriate to include these diseases as confounding variables in the Cox regression analysis. The authors said that they limited the number of variables included in the regression model because the AF incidence was 9.1% (n = 75). However, in regression analysis, the number of events per variable can be between 5–9. It is known that the results of this analysis are correct [5]. Therefore, the number of variables evaluated in the regression analysis could have been increased to eight. Finally, the difference in β‐blocker use rates between groups may have caused AASI to lead to a statistically significant difference between the groups. Purifying the study results from the effects of the drugs used would also enable better interpretation of the results.
Despite these comments, we agree that this study will contribute greatly to the literature.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1C. J. Boos , A. Hein , T. Wardill , et al., “The Relationship Between Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness Index and Incident Atrial Fibrillation,” Clinical Cardiology 47, no. 6 (2024): e 24299.38873860 10.1002/clc.24299 PMC 11177039 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 2C. J. Boos , A. Hein , and A. Khattab , “Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness Index, Mortality, and Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes; Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Journal of Clinical Hypertension 26, no. 2 (2024): 89–101.38234206 10.1111/jch.14755 PMC 10857461 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 3M. Candemir , E. Kızıltunç , S. G. Nurkoç , B. Cihan , and A. Şahinarslan , “Predictors of Length of Hospital Stay and In‐Hospital Adverse Events in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: In‐Hospital 24‐Hour Blood Pressure Monitoring Data,” Hellenic Journal of Cardiology 24, no. 24 (2024): S 1109‐9666(24)00132‐5.10.1016/j.hjc.2024.06.00838925251 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 4D. Lancellotti , A. Abarca , J. Jorquera , C. Lobos , D. Aguilera , and N. SÁnchez , “Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness Index in Diabetic Patients,” Revista médica de Chile 148, no. 4 (2020): 488–495.32730458 10.4067/s 0034-98872020000400488 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 5E. Vittinghoff and C. E. Mc Culloch , “Relaxing the Rule of Ten Events Per Variable in Logistic and Cox Regression,” American Journal of Epidemiology 165, no. 6 (2007): 710–718.17182981 10.1093/aje/kwk 052 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
