Evaluation of Arterial Stiffness Parameters Measurement With Noninvasive Methods—A Systematic Review

Objective: Arterial stiffness, as determined by pulse wave velocity (PWV), is a recognized marker of cardiovascular risk. Noninvasive technologies have enabled easier and more accessible assessments of PWV. The current gold standard for measuring carotid–femoral PWV (cfPWV)—a reliable indicator of arterial stiffness—utilizes applanation tonometry devices, as recommended by the Artery Society Guidelines. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of various noninvasive arterial stiffness measurement methods, specifically the Mobil‐O‐Graph and SphygmoCor/SphygmoCor XCEL, and evaluate their alignment with the Artery Society Guidelines for accuracy and reliability. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases to identify studies that compared and validated noninvasive PWV measurements, focusing on their repeatability. The search covered studies from inception through March 31, 2024. A total of 2092 papers were identified. Following the selection process, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, 2 more studies, not retrieved by the initial search but deemed relevant from other databases, were included. The included studies focused on populations with chronic diseases who were hemodynamically stable. Studies involving participants in specific conditions, such as pregnancy, hemodynamic shock, or undergoing stress tests, were excluded from the analysis. Results: Several devices have been developed and validated for the noninvasive measurement of arterial stiffness, utilizing applanation tonometry (e.g., SphygmoCor, SphygmoCor XCEL) and cuff‐based oscillometry (e.g., Arteriograph, Mobil‐O‐Graph). The analyses reviewed included studies using both invasive and noninvasive devices. A notable finding was the relative heterogeneity of study populations across different research, with variations in sample size, BMI, sex proportions, and age groups often falling short of guideline recommendations. In most of the included validation studies, the sample sizes were smaller than the minimum recommended by guidelines. Moreover, factors such as BMI, sex distribution, and age group sizes were inconsistent with established standards. Despite these limitations, validation studies comparing invasive and noninvasive methods consistently highlighted the superiority of cfPWV assessment devices. Applanation tonometry devices demonstrated smaller discrepancies in PWV measurements and better overall agreement with invasive methods than oscillometry‐based devices. Three studies comparing the SphygmoCor XCEL with the standard SphygmoCor showed an excellent level of agreement, with one study confirming the SphygmoCor XCEL’s superior adherence to validation criteria. Oscillometric devices showed a stronger reliance on algorithmic adjustments based on factors such as age and systolic blood pressure. This dependence likely contributes to the underestimation of PWV, particularly in populations with chronic diseases or other conditions promoting arterial stiffness. Despite this, oscillometric devices demonstrated lower PWV variability in short‐term repeatability assessments. Conclusions: More research on a larger population should be performed in order to introduce noninvasive devices into daily medical practice.