PURPOSE: Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is a marker of arterial stiffness with major prognostic value. We compared Arteriograph and Complior devices with the Mobil-O-Graph for assessment of PWV and central systolic blood pressure (cSBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 316 consecutive subjects (age: 55 ± 14 years). For each individual, we measured PWV and cSBP with Arteriograph, Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and compared the readings. Differences in values among three devices were calculated for each measurement. We used Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean difference for PWV: i.0.5 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.4) between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph, ii.0.6 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.6) between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph. cSBP mean difference was 3.8 mmHg between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -12.5-20.1) and 9.2 mmHg between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -7.6-26). ICC for PWV was 0.86 between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 0.87 between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and for cSBP 0.92 and 0.91 respectively. CV for PWV was 9.5% between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 8.8% between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph. Respective values for cSBP were 6.8% and 5.1%. CONCLUSION: Our study shows acceptable agreement among the three devices regarding pulse wave analysis markers though Mobil-O-Graph appears to underestimate the values of these markers. Further studies are needed to explore the agreement between the 3 devices in various clinical settings and patient populations.
PURPOSE: Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is a marker of arterial stiffness with major prognostic value. We compared Arteriograph and Complior devices with the Mobil-O-Graph for assessment of PWV and central systolic blood pressure (cSBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 316 consecutive subjects (age: 55 ± 14 years). For each individual, we measured PWV and cSBP with Arteriograph, Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and compared the readings. Differences in values among three devices were calculated for each measurement. We used Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean difference for PWV: i.0.5 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.4) between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph, ii.0.6 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.6) between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph. cSBP mean difference was 3.8 mmHg between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -12.5-20.1) and 9.2 mmHg between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -7.6-26). ICC for PWV was 0.86 between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 0.87 between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and for cSBP 0.92 and 0.91 respectively. CV for PWV was 9.5% between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 8.8% between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph. Respective values for cSBP were 6.8% and 5.1%. CONCLUSION: Our study shows acceptable agreement among the three devices regarding pulse wave analysis markers though Mobil-O-Graph appears to underestimate the values of these markers. Further studies are needed to explore the agreement between the 3 devices in various clinical settings and patient populations.
Authors: Anna Oliveras; Albert Goday; Laia Sans; Carlos E Arias; Susana Vazquez; David Benaiges; José Manuel Ramon; Julio Pascual Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Danielle Cristina Silva Clímaco; Thais C Lustosa; Marcus Vinícius de F P; Ozeas L Lins-Filho; Valesca Kehrle Rodrigues; Luiz de Albuquerque P de Oliveira Neto; Audes Diógenes Magalhães Feitosa; Fernando José Pinho Queiroga Júnior; Marília Montenegro Cabral; Rodrigo P Pedrosa Journal: Sleep Breath Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 2.816
Authors: Eija K Laakkonen; Jari E Karppinen; Satu Lehti; Earric Lee; Emilia Pesonen; Hanna-Kaarina Juppi; Urho M Kujala; Eero A Haapala; Pauliina Aukee; Jari A Laukkanen; Johanna K Ihalainen Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 5.555
Authors: Marleen J de Leeuw; Alyt Oppewal; Roy G Elbers; Mireille W E J Knulst; Marco C van Maurik; Marjoleine C van Bruggen; Thessa I M Hilgenkamp; Patrick J E Bindels; Dederieke A M Maes-Festen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Pinelopi Rafouli-Stergiou; Ignatios Ikonomidis; Niki Katsiki; Nikolaos P E Kadoglou; Stefanos Vlachos; John Thymis; John Parissis; Konstantinos G Moulakakis; John D Kakisis Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 3.738