Literature DB >> 29059329

Short-Term Repeatability of Noninvasive Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity Assessment: Comparison Between Methods and Devices.

Andrea Grillo1,2, Gianfranco Parati1,2, Matteo Rovina3, Francesco Moretti1, Lucia Salvi4, Lan Gao5, Corrado Baldi3, Giovanni Sorropago6, Andrea Faini1, Sandrine C Millasseau7, Filippo Scalise6, Renzo Carretta3, Paolo Salvi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) is an indirect index of arterial stiffness and an independent cardiovascular risk factor. Consistency of PWV assessment over time is thus an essential feature for its clinical application. However, studies providing a comparative estimate of the reproducibility of PWV across different noninvasive devices are lacking, especially in the elderly and in individuals at high cardiovascular risk.
METHODS: Aimed at filling this gap, short-term repeatability of PWV, estimated with 6 different devices (Complior Analyse, PulsePen-ETT, PulsePen-ET, SphygmoCor Px/Vx, BPLab, and Mobil-O-Graph), was evaluated in 102 high cardiovascular risk patients hospitalized for suspected coronary artery disease (72 males, 65 ± 13 years). PWV was measured in a single session twice, at 15-minute interval, and its reproducibility was assessed though coefficient of variation (CV), coefficient of repeatability, and intraclass correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: The CV of PWV, measured with any of these devices, was <10%. Repeatability was higher with cuff-based methods (BPLab: CV = 5.5% and Mobil-O-Graph: CV = 3.4%) than with devices measuring carotid-femoral PWV (Complior: CV = 8.2%; PulsePen-TT: CV = 8.0%; PulsePen-ETT: CV = 5.8%; and SphygmoCor: CV = 9.5%). In the latter group, PWV repeatability was lower in subjects with higher carotid-femoral PWV. The differences in PWV between repeated measurements, except for the Mobil-O-Graph, did not depend on short-term variations of mean blood pressure or heart rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the short-term repeatability of PWV measures is good but not homogenous across different devices and at different PWV values. These findings, obtained in patients at high cardiovascular risk, may be relevant when evaluating the prognostic importance of PWV. © American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd 2017. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic stiffness; arterial stiffness; blood pressure; coefficient of variation; coronary artery disease; hypertension; pulse wave velocity; repeatability

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29059329     DOI: 10.1093/ajh/hpx140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Hypertens        ISSN: 0895-7061            Impact factor:   2.689


  18 in total

1.  On the Association Between Sleep Quality and Arterial Stiffness: A Population Study in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Living in Rural Ecuador (The Atahualpa Project).

Authors:  Oscar H Del Brutto; Robertino M Mera; Ernesto Peñaherrera; Aldo F Costa; Rubén Peñaherrera; Pablo R Castillo
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 4.062

2.  Arterial Stiffness in Aortic Stenosis and the Impact of Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Oscar Plunde; Magnus Bäck
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2022-03-08

3.  Cuff-Based Oscillometric Measurements of Central Hemodynamics: Factors Influencing Central Augmentation Pressure in Normotensive Japanese Individuals.

Authors:  Masakazu Obayashi; Shigeki Kobayashi; Michiaki Kohno; Tomoko Nakashima; Masafumi Yano
Journal:  Pulse (Basel)       Date:  2019-01-30

4.  Dual impedance cardiography: An inexpensive and reliable method to assess arterial stiffness.

Authors:  Mark R Scudder; J Richard Jennings; Caitlin M DuPont; Kimberly G Lockwood; Shrenik H Gadagkar; Belen Best; Swetha P Jasti; Peter J Gianaros
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 4.348

5.  Unreliable Estimation of Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity Provided by the Mobil-O-Graph Algorithm-Based System in Marfan Syndrome.

Authors:  Paolo Salvi; Giulia Furlanis; Andrea Grillo; Alessandro Pini; Lucia Salvi; Susan Marelli; Matteo Rovina; Francesco Moretti; Raffaella Gaetano; Inês Pintassilgo; Andrea Faini; Bruno Fabris; Renzo Carretta; Gianfranco Parati
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 5.501

6.  Rapid and automated risk stratification by determination of the aortic stiffness in healthy subjects and subjects with cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Julia Lortz; Lennard Halfmann; Amelie Burghardt; Martin Steinmetz; Tobias Radecke; Rolf Alexander Jánosi; Tienush Rassaf; Christos Rammos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Automated pulse wave velocity assessment using a professional oscillometric office blood pressure monitor.

Authors:  Anastasios Kollias; Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis; Areti Gravvani; Ioannis Anagnostopoulos; George S Stergiou
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 3.738

8.  Estimating pulse wave velocity from the radial pressure wave using machine learning algorithms.

Authors:  Weiwei Jin; Philip Chowienczyk; Jordi Alastruey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Inter-operator Reliability for Measuring Pulse Wave Velocity and Augmentation Index.

Authors:  Catherine A Elliot; Michael J Hamlin; Catherine A Lizamore
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2020-04-28

10.  Study protocol for a prospective cohort study to investigate Hemodynamic Adaptation to Pregnancy and Placenta-related Outcome: the HAPPO study.

Authors:  Rianne C Bijl; Jérôme M J Cornette; Annemien E van den Bosch; Johannes J Duvekot; Jeroen Molinger; Sten P Willemsen; Anton H J Koning; Jolien W Roos-Hesselink; Arie Franx; Régine P M Steegers-Theunissen; Maria P H Koster
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-10       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.