Why the study?
Recent technological developments provide the ability to non-invasively measure central augmentation index (AIx) based on various algorithms, but the agreement among different devices required comparison.
Are central augmentation index measurements obtained by Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph devices interchangeable in patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment?
Are central augmentation index measurements obtained by Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph devices interchangeable in patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment?
Significant differences exist in central augmentation index estimation among Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph devices, rendering them non-interchangeable in clinical practice.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIx values show acceptable device agreement with some underestimation; leaves open standardization before routine clinical or research use.
Wave reflection at central arteries consists of a major component of left ventricular afterload. Central augmentation index (AIx) is the most widely used surrogate of wave reflection. Recent technological developments now provide the ability to obtain, non-invasively, aortic, or carotid pressure waves and measure AIx based on various algorithms of pulse wave analysis. The aim of this study was to compare AIx measurements performed by the Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph apparatuses. Recordings by each device in randomized order were performed with 5-minute interval at 211 individuals (age 55.1 ± 14.1 years, 67.8% males) who underwent diagnostic cardiovascular assessment. All measurements were obtained at the supine position, and AIx was calculated using the formula AIx = 100 × (Augmentation pressure)/(Pulse Pressure). Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Mean difference (bias) ± one standard deviation of difference (with limits of agreement) of AIx between different devices was as follows: (a) Mobil-O-Graph vs Complior: -2.1 ± 14.8% (-31.1% to 26.9%), (b) Arteriograph vs Complior: 12.9 ± 14.6% (-15.7% to 41.5%), and (c) Mobil-O-Graph vs Arteriograph: -10.8 ± 16.9% (-43.9% to 22.3%). The three examined devices exerted significant differences in central AIx estimation which makes the three devices non-interchangeable for wave reflection assessment. However, the Mobil-O-Graph device showed the highest agreement (lowest bias) with the Complior system as regards to the AIx measurement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papaioannou et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: