Key result
The Vicorder device produced similar aortic pulse wave velocity readings compared to the SphygmoCor device in pregnant women, with a non-significant mean difference of 0.1 m/s (p=0.4).
Why the study?
Does the Vicorder device provide similar aortic pulse wave velocity measurements compared to the SphygmoCor device in pregnant women?
Cross-Sectional (n=58)
No
Does the Vicorder device provide similar aortic pulse wave velocity measurements compared to the SphygmoCor device in pregnant women?
Effect estimate: Mean difference 0.1 m/s
Absolute Event Rate: 5.4% vs 5.5%
p-value: p=0.4
The SphygmoCor and Vicorder devices provide comparable measurements of aortic pulse wave velocity in mid-trimester pregnancy, with the Vicorder potentially offering practical advantages in clinical settings.
Supports Vicorder-SphygmoCor interchangeability for aortic PWV in pregnancy; leaves open prospective validation before broader adoption.
Background: Aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) has been found to be increased in preeclampsia when compared to normal pregnancy. Preeclampsia is associated with increased risk of later cardiovascular disease and, as such, study of the aortic stiffness in pregnancy, and its hypertensive disorders, is important to the understanding the underlying vascular changes. We compared two different techniques to measure aPWV in the mid-trimester of pregnancy. Methods: 58 women were recruited from the obstetric ultrasound clinic, mean (±SD) age 33 (±6) years and gestation 27 (±1) weeks. Aortic PWV was measured using SphygmoCor and Vicorder devices. Results: We found that both devices provided similar aPWV values with no significant difference between devices: mean difference (±SD), 0.1 (±0.9)m/s, p = 0.4. We found good correlation between devices (r = 0.6, p < 0.001). Good intra-observer variability was observed for both SphygmoCor and Vicorder devices, coefficients of variation 5.69% and 2.67%, respectively. Conclusions: The SphygmoCor and Vicorder devices produce similar readings for aPWV in the second trimester of pregnancy, with good intra-observer variability. Due to its simpler technique the Vicorder device may be more suited to the clinical setting, particularly in advanced pregnancy or obesity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Everett et al. (2012) conducted a cross-sectional in Pregnancy (n=58). Vicorder device vs. SphygmoCor device was evaluated on Aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) (Mean difference 0.1 m/s, p=0.4). The Vicorder device produced similar aortic pulse wave velocity readings compared to the SphygmoCor device in pregnant women, with a non-significant mean difference of 0.1 m/s (p=0.4).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: