PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 1, 1995Hypertension1,377 citations

Assessment of Arterial Distensibility by Automatic Pulse Wave Velocity Measurement

View Full Paper
RARoland AsmarABAthanase BénétosJTJirar Topouchian

Structured PICO

Does an automatic device accurately and reproducibly measure pulse wave velocity compared to manual calculation?

P
Population
56 subjects for accuracy evaluation, and a separate cohort of 418 subjects of both sexes without any cardiovascular treatment or complication (18 to 77 years of age) for evaluating major determinants.
I
Intervention
Automatic on-line and computerized measurement of pulse wave velocity using an algorithm based on time-shifted and repeated linear correlation calculation.
C
Comparator
Manual calculation (reference method).
O
Outcome
Accuracy (mean difference) and reproducibility (interobserver and intraobserver repeatability coefficients) of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements.surrogate

A new automatic device for measuring pulse wave velocity is accurate and highly reproducible compared to manual calculation, facilitating its use for assessing arterial distensibility in large populations.

Abstract

Pulse wave velocity is widely used as an index of arterial distensibility. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a new automatic device to measure it and then to analyze the major determinants of pulse wave velocity by application of this device in a large population. We evaluated the accuracy of on-line and computerized measurement of pulse wave velocity using an algorithm based on the time-shifted and repeated linear correlation calculation between the initial rise in pressure waveforms compared with the reference method (manual calculation) in 56 subjects. The results, analyzed according to the recommendations of Bland and Altman, showed a mean difference of -0.20 +/- 0.45 m/s for the mean carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity values (reference method, 11.05 +/- 2.58 m/s; automatic device, 10.85 +/- 2.44 m/s). The interreproducibility and intrareproducibility of measurements by each method were analyzed with the use of the repeatability coefficient according to the British Standards Institution. The interobserver repeatability coefficient was 0.947 for the manual method and 0.890 for the automatic, and intraobserver repeatability coefficients were 0.938 and 0.935, respectively. We evaluated the major determinants of the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measured by the automatic method in a separate study performed in 418 subjects of both sexes without any cardiovascular treatment or complication (18 to 77 years of age; 98 to 222 mm Hg systolic and 62 to 130 mm Hg diastolic pressure).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Asmar et al. (1995) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a01a55afdf359f3d7d8ae51https://doi.org/10.1161/01.hyp.26.3.485
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper