Key result
PulsePen shows better PWV reproducibility than Arteriograph, which demonstrates poor AIx% reliability.
Why the study?
The study investigated agreement between PWV and AIx% in controlled fasted versus uncontrolled real-world conditions, and evaluated their reproducibility across repeated visits in adolescents.
Do the PulsePen and Arteriograph devices provide reproducible and agreeable measurements of pulse wave velocity and augmentation index in adolescents?
Observational (n=28)
Do the PulsePen and Arteriograph devices provide reproducible and agreeable measurements of pulse wave velocity and augmentation index in adolescents?
The PulsePen device offers better reproducibility for pulse wave velocity than the Arteriograph in adolescents, but both devices show high variability for augmentation index and their measurements cannot be directly compared.
May favor PulsePen for adolescent PWV assessment; leaves open device reliability for clinical or research use.
Objectives We investigated the agreement between pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AIx%) obtained in a controlled fasted condition versus a non‐fasted, uncontrolled, “real‐world” condition. Thereafter, we assessed the reproducibility of PWV and AIx% over three repeated visits under controlled fasted conditions. Methods PWV and AIx% were assessed in one uncontrolled visit, and three controlled fasted visits after a 10‐min supine rest in 28 adolescents (61% girls) aged 12–14 years. Results Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between controlled visits were 0.5–0.6 (PWV) and −0.3–0.6 (AIx%) for PulsePen, and 0.5–0.6 (PWV) and 0.4–0.7 (AIx%) for Arteriograph. ICCs between a single uncontrolled visit and controlled visits were lower, especially for the Arteriograph (PWV: 0.0–0.1; AIx%: −0.4–0.0). Device agreement was poor (PWV ICC: −0.2–0.1; AIx% ICC: −0.5–0.3). Reproducibility using PulsePen was (PWV: 0.2–0.8; AIx%: −0.3–0.6) and Arteriograph (PWV: 0.0–0.1; AIx%: −0.4–0.0). Conclusion The PulsePen had better reproducibility of PWV than the Arteriograph. Both devices had limited reliability and high variability in AIx% measurements. PWV from the PulsePen may be applicable in healthcare, while results from the Arteriograph should be interpreted with caution. Because of the poor agreement between the devices, the data from these devices should not be directly compared. These results may not be generalizable based on the modest sample size. In addition, the variability in real‐world situations should not be overlooked.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Torres et al. (2026) reported an observational. PulsePen and Arteriograph devices was evaluated on Reproducibility and agreement of pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AIx%). The PulsePen demonstrated better reproducibility of pulse wave velocity (ICC 0.2-0.8) compared to the Arteriograph (ICC 0.0-0.1), though both devices had limited reliability for augmentation index.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: