Aortic pulse wave velocity is a worldwide accepted index to evaluate aortic stiffness and can be assessed noninvasively by several methods. This study sought to determine if commonly used noninvasive devices can all accurately estimate aortic pulse wave velocity. Pulse wave velocity was estimated in 102 patients (aged 65 +/- 13 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography with 7 noninvasive devices and compared with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. Devices evaluating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ET, PulsePen ETT, and SphygmoCor) showed a strong agreement between each other (r>0.83) and with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. The mean difference +/- SD with the invasive pulse wave velocity was -0.73 +/- 2.83 m/s (r=0.64) for Complior-Analyse: 0.20 +/- 2.54 m/s (r=0.71) for PulsePen-ETT: -0.04 +/- 2.33 m/s (r=0.78) for PulsePen ET; and -0.61 +/- 2.57 m/s (r=0.70) for SphygmoCor. The finger-toe pulse wave velocity, evaluated by pOpmetre, showed only a weak relationship with invasive aortic recording (mean difference +/- SD =-0.44 +/- 4.44 m/s; r=0.41), and with noninvasive carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements (r<0.33). Pulse wave velocity estimated through a proprietary algorithm by BPLab (v.5.03 and v.6.02) and Mobil-O-Graph showed a weaker agreement with invasive pulse wave velocity compared with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (mean difference +/- SD =-0.71 +/- 3.55 m/s, r=0.23; 1.04 +/- 2.27 m/s, r=0.77; and -1.01 +/- 2.54 m/s, r=0.71, respectively), revealing a negative proportional bias at Bland-Altman plot. Aortic pulse wave velocity values provided by BPLab and Mobil-O-Graph were entirely dependent on age-squared and peripheral systolic blood pressure (cumulative r(2)=0.98 and 0.99, respectively). Thus, among the methods evaluated, only those assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ETT, PulsePen ET, and SphygmoCor) appear to be reliable approaches for estimation of aortic stiffness.

Noninvasive Estimation of Aortic Stiffness Through Different Approaches

Salvi, Paolo
;
Rovina, Matteo;Grillo, Andrea;Baldi, Corrado;Furlanis, Giulia;Carretta, Renzo;
2019-01-01

Abstract

Aortic pulse wave velocity is a worldwide accepted index to evaluate aortic stiffness and can be assessed noninvasively by several methods. This study sought to determine if commonly used noninvasive devices can all accurately estimate aortic pulse wave velocity. Pulse wave velocity was estimated in 102 patients (aged 65 +/- 13 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography with 7 noninvasive devices and compared with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. Devices evaluating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ET, PulsePen ETT, and SphygmoCor) showed a strong agreement between each other (r>0.83) and with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. The mean difference +/- SD with the invasive pulse wave velocity was -0.73 +/- 2.83 m/s (r=0.64) for Complior-Analyse: 0.20 +/- 2.54 m/s (r=0.71) for PulsePen-ETT: -0.04 +/- 2.33 m/s (r=0.78) for PulsePen ET; and -0.61 +/- 2.57 m/s (r=0.70) for SphygmoCor. The finger-toe pulse wave velocity, evaluated by pOpmetre, showed only a weak relationship with invasive aortic recording (mean difference +/- SD =-0.44 +/- 4.44 m/s; r=0.41), and with noninvasive carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements (r<0.33). Pulse wave velocity estimated through a proprietary algorithm by BPLab (v.5.03 and v.6.02) and Mobil-O-Graph showed a weaker agreement with invasive pulse wave velocity compared with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (mean difference +/- SD =-0.71 +/- 3.55 m/s, r=0.23; 1.04 +/- 2.27 m/s, r=0.77; and -1.01 +/- 2.54 m/s, r=0.71, respectively), revealing a negative proportional bias at Bland-Altman plot. Aortic pulse wave velocity values provided by BPLab and Mobil-O-Graph were entirely dependent on age-squared and peripheral systolic blood pressure (cumulative r(2)=0.98 and 0.99, respectively). Thus, among the methods evaluated, only those assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ETT, PulsePen ET, and SphygmoCor) appear to be reliable approaches for estimation of aortic stiffness.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.12853.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Descrizione: Articolo liberamente accessibile dal sito dell'editore
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Copyright Editore
Dimensione 2.38 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.38 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
hyp_hype201912853d_supp2.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Descrizione: Supplementary material
Tipologia: Altro materiale allegato
Licenza: Copyright Editore
Dimensione 7.08 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
7.08 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.12853-Post_print.pdf

Open Access dal 29/11/2019

Tipologia: Bozza finale post-referaggio (post-print)
Licenza: Digital Rights Management non definito
Dimensione 2.97 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.97 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11368/3038220
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 36
  • Scopus 87
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 85
social impact