LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

COMPARISON BETWEEN AORTIC PULSE WAVE VELOCITY MEASURED INVASIVELY AND NON-INVASIVELY BY EIGHT DIFFERENT DEVICES

Photo by syedmohdali121 from unsplash

Objective: Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) is the best indicator of aortic viscoelastic properties. Aim of this study is to investigate if invasively measured aortic PWV is accurately estimated by… Click to show full abstract

Objective: Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) is the best indicator of aortic viscoelastic properties. Aim of this study is to investigate if invasively measured aortic PWV is accurately estimated by non-invasive methods which purport to assess it. Design and method: One-hundred and two patients (30% female, mean age 65 ± 13 years) planned to undertake a cardiac catheterization were enrolled in the study. Different non-invasive methods were evaluated for each subject by randomly alternating the following devices: BPLab, Complior Analyse, Mobil-O-Graph, pOpmètre, PulsePen-ET, PulsePen-ETT and SphygmoCor. Immediately after, aortic PWV was evaluated by aortic catheterization and simultaneous measurement of pressure wave above the aortic valve and at the aortic bifurcation (FS-Stiffcath). Invasive data were analyzed by proprietary software and compared with non-invasive PWV values by Bland-Altman analysis and paired parametric tests (for the whole population) and non-parametric tests (for quartiles of population according to PWV). Results: Devices evaluating carotid-femoral PWV (Complior Analyse, PulsePen-ET, PulsePen-ETT, SphygmoCor) and the Mobil-O-Graph presented a strong agreement with aortic invasive PWV (respectively, Pearson R = 0.64, 0.78, 0.71, 0.70, 0.66), while a moderate agreement was present for the BPLab and the pOpmètre (R = 0.23, 0.23). In the whole population, a significant underestimation of invasive PWV was present for Complior Analyse (−0.73 m/s, p = 0.016), SphygmoCor (−0.61 m/s, p = 0.024), Mobil-O-Graph (−1.01 m/s, p < 0.001) and pOpmètre (−1.55 m/s, p = 0.003). A tendency toward the overestimation of aortic PWV for lower PWV values and the underestimation of PWV for higher values was present for all devices, and was significant for the PulsePen-ET and the BPLab in the lowest quartile (PWV < 8.5 m/s, p < 0.05) and for Complior Analyse, SphygmoCor, BPLab and Mobil-O-Graph for the highest quartile (PWV > 13 m/s, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Devices measuring carotid-femoral PWV and the Mobil-O-Graph, which estimates aortic PWV from age and blood pressure values, present a good correlation with invasive aortic PWV in a large population with cardiovascular disease, while a less good agreement was found for other measuring devices (BPLab, pOpmètre). The underestimation of high PWV values may lead to erroneous estimation of cardiovascular risk by non-invasive devices.

Keywords: aortic pulse; aortic pwv; pwv; mobil graph

Journal Title: Journal of Hypertension
Year Published: 2018

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.