Key result
Averaging ten heartbeats minimizes aortic pulse wave velocity variability, yielding comparable sequential and simultaneous measurements.
Why the study?
Invasive aPWV shows beat-to-beat variability due to haemodynamic variability and processing issues, but its quantification and implications for validation and clinical reliability were unclear.
Does the acquisition protocol and data processing affect the beat-to-beat variability of invasive aortic pulse wave velocity in human subjects?
Observational (n=84)
No
Does the acquisition protocol and data processing affect the beat-to-beat variability of invasive aortic pulse wave velocity in human subjects?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Averaging at least ten consecutive heartbeats mitigates the high intrinsic and methodological beat-to-beat variability of aPWV, facilitating reliable reference measurements for noninvasive device validation.
OBJECTIVES: Aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) predicts cardiovascular risk. Being the reference method for aortic stiffness evaluation, invasive aPWV is also recommended for validation of noninvasive devices. Because of intrinsic haemodynamic variability and processing issues, aPWV shows beat-to-beat variability. We aimed to quantify this variability and evaluate its implications for the reliability and use of aPWV as reference in validation and clinical application studies. METHODS: The study included n = 84 patients, in whom two datasets of invasive data were recorded: 1) simultaneous ascending aorta and iliac pressure acquisitions using a dual-tip intra-aortic catheter, and 2) an additional ascending aorta pressure acquisition. By combining the iliac and ascending aorta pressure recordings from the first and second acquisitions, respectively, we evaluated how a sequential acquisition protocol affects variability. We compared three pressure waveform foot identification methods to investigate the effect of data processing on variability. Furthermore, we estimated how averaging over nbeats consecutive heartbeats affects the standard deviation (SD) of such nbeats -averaged estimate of aPWV. RESULTS: The simultaneously acquired invasive aPWV showed a 5% beat-to-beat SD (variability), with small but significant differences between foot identification methods. The sequential acquisition protocol doubled aPWV variability compared to simultaneous acquisition. However, because averaging had a much stronger effect on sequentially measured aPWV, the two acquisition protocols yielded comparable variabilities at nbeats = 10 (2% vs. 3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that, independently from the acquisition protocol and data processing, the intrinsic beat-to-beat variability of aPWV becomes manageable when aPWV values of at least ten heartbeats are averaged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giudici et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Patients undergoing invasive aortic pressure monitoring (n=84). Sequential acquisition protocol vs. Simultaneous acquisition protocol was evaluated on Beat-to-beat variability (standard deviation) of aortic pulse wave velocity. Averaging aortic pulse wave velocity values over at least ten consecutive heartbeats reduced intrinsic beat-to-beat variability to manageable levels, yielding comparable variabilities between sequential (3%) and simultaneous (2%) acquisition protocols.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: