Key result
The Aortic device showed an excellent level of agreement with the SphygmoCor reference device for pulse wave velocity measurement, with a mean difference of 0.02 m/s (r=0.89, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Does the Aortic device accurately measure pulse wave velocity compared to the SphygmoCor device in adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=85)
Does the Aortic device accurately measure pulse wave velocity compared to the SphygmoCor device in adults?
The new Aortic piezo-electronic device demonstrates excellent agreement with the reference SphygmoCor device for non-invasive measurement of pulse wave velocity.
Supports Aortic device evaluation for PWV; leaves open prospective outcome validation before clinical adoption.
Our aim was to validate a new device for pulse wave velocity (PWV) measurement – Aortic according to the recommendations of the Artery Society and using SphygmoCor as the comparator device. Methods: 85 subjects 18–80 years-old from both sexes were included, divided into 3 age-groups: <30, 30–60 and >60 years (minimum of 25 individuals per group) and with an equal number of hypertensive and normotensive subjects per group. Weight, height, blood pressure (BP) and PWV were assessed, performing 6 PWV determinations per subject: 3 with Aortic and 3 with SphygmoCor, in an alternate fashion. The Bland–Altman method was used to establish the level of agreement between the two devices. Results: PWV was 6.96 (±1.84) and 7 (±1.54) m/s with Aortic and SphygmoCor, respectively, showing a high correlation: r = 0.89, p < 0.001. Applying the Bland–Altman method, the mean difference between devices was 0.02 (±0.84) m/s, which is considered an excellent level of agreement. Of the study population, 75.3% (n = 64), 15.3% (n = 13) and 9.4% (n = 8) reached an excellent (mean difference ≤0.5 ± 0.8 m/s), acceptable (mean difference ≤1.0 ± 1.5 m/s) and poor (mean difference ≥ 1.0 ± 1.5 m/s) level of agreement, respectively. Conclusion: Aortic showed an excellent level of agreement with SphygmoCor, the reference method, according to the Artery Society recommendations for PWV measurement. This was observed particularly for lower PWV values.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morales et al. (2015) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=85). Aortic device vs. SphygmoCor device was evaluated on Pulse wave velocity (PWV) measurement agreement (MD 0.02, p=< 0.001). The Aortic device showed an excellent level of agreement with the SphygmoCor reference device for pulse wave velocity measurement, with a mean difference of 0.02 m/s (r=0.89, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: