Key result
Mean pulse wave velocity was significantly higher when measured with the Arteriograph compared to the SphygmoCor device (10.2 m/s vs. 8.9 m/s, p=0.004), indicating the methods are not interchangeable.
Why the study?
Does oscillometry (Arteriograph) provide comparable measurements of pulse wave velocity and central blood pressure to applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor)?
Cross-Sectional (n=33)
No
Does oscillometry (Arteriograph) provide comparable measurements of pulse wave velocity and central blood pressure to applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor)?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.2% vs 8.9%
p-value: p=0.004
The Arteriograph and SphygmoCor devices do not provide interchangeable measurements of pulse wave velocity, likely because the Arteriograph measures brachial rather than aortic stiffness.
Clinicians should not interchange Arteriograph and SphygmoCor PWV readings; cross-sectional data leaves open the need for device-specific validation.
Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is an important parameter in the assessment of overall cardiovascular risk and there is well documented predictions of mortality in special groups of patients. Several methods are available for measuring the velocity and other parameters of the pulse wave. Our aim was to assess the comparability of two methods; applanation tonometry, which is used by the SphygmoCor device and oscillometry employed by the Arteriograph system. Published data on their comparability are contradictory. Thirty-three patients of both sexes were examined in the study. Mean PWV was significantly higher with Arteriograph than SphygmoCor (10.2 m/s ± 3.9 vs. 8.9 m/s ± 2.5) and Aix was significantly higher with Arteriograph than SphygmoCor too (29.3 ± 16.3 vs. 21.2 ± 12.6). The lack of agreement between the two methods is confirmed also by the Bland–Altman plot. Due to working principle of the Arteriograph possible conclusion is that parameters provided by the Arteriograph are the measures of brachial stiffness and not aortic stiffness. However, the method used by the Arteriograph is definitely much simpler and more time-efficient than applanation tonometry used by the SphygmoCor device.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Accetto et al. (2011) conducted a cross-sectional in Patients scheduled for pulse wave velocity evaluation (n=33). Arteriograph vs. SphygmoCor was evaluated on Pulse wave velocity (PWV) (p=0.004). Mean pulse wave velocity was significantly higher when measured with the Arteriograph compared to the SphygmoCor device (10.2 m/s vs. 8.9 m/s, p=0.004), indicating the methods are not interchangeable.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: