Key result
Noninvasive devices assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity showed good agreement (r=0.64-0.78) with invasive aortic measurements, whereas other noninvasive methods were less reliable.
Why the study?
Aortic pulse wave velocity assesses aortic stiffness noninvasively by several methods, but whether commonly used noninvasive devices can all accurately estimate it remained to be determined.
Can commonly used noninvasive devices accurately estimate aortic pulse wave velocity compared to invasive measurement in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
Population
102 patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography
Comparison
7 noninvasive devices vs invasive aortic pulse wave velocity
Authors
Loading...
Only noninvasive devices assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity provide reliable estimates of aortic stiffness compared to invasive measurements.
Cross-Sectional (n=102)
Can commonly used noninvasive devices accurately estimate aortic pulse wave velocity compared to invasive measurement in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
Only noninvasive devices assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity provide reliable estimates of aortic stiffness compared to invasive measurements.
Salvi et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (n=102). Noninvasive devices for estimating aortic pulse wave velocity vs. Invasive aortic pulse wave velocity was evaluated on Agreement with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. Noninvasive devices assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity showed good agreement (r=0.64-0.78) with invasive aortic measurements, whereas other noninvasive methods were less reliable.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: