Why the study?
Detecting the smallest clinically significant change in pulse wave velocity depends on expected reproducibility, but consensus on this reproducibility is currently lacking.
What is the optimal number of measurements and threshold for detecting clinically significant changes in pulse wave velocity?
What is the optimal number of measurements and threshold for detecting clinically significant changes in pulse wave velocity?
Current guidelines recommending 2+1 measurements for PWV are suboptimal; a median of four measurements with a 1.1 m/s threshold provides the best reproducibility for detecting clinically significant changes in arterial stiffness.
Reproducibility estimates inform minimal detectable PWV change; leaves open standardized thresholds for clinical and trial use.
Pulse wave velocity (PWV), a direct measure of arterial stiffness, is a promising biomarker of cardiovascular risk and a cardiovascular surrogate outcome. The resolution for detecting its smallest clinically significant change is dependent on the expected reproducibility, but there is currently no consensus on this. We estimated the PWV reproducibility in a range of intra-subject values that were observed over a 2 week period in a broad range of participants and under clinically relevant experimental conditions (two observers, morning/afternoon sessions, and number of visits) using SphygmoCor and Arteriograph devices. Each participant was recorded 12 times with each device over three visits, one week apart, and two morning and two afternoon recordings were taken per visit. The factors affecting reproducibility and the discrepancies between the consecutive PWV measurements for each device were also examined using multilevel mixed-effect models. We show that current PWV estimation guidance recommending 2 + 1 measurements is suboptimal because the PWV range was outside of the 1 m/s threshold for most of the participants, which is proposed as a minimal clinically important difference. The best reproducibility was yielded with median of four measurements and a 1.1 m/s threshold. Although PWV reproducibility and repeatability are frequently used interchangeably in studies, we demonstrated that despite their relative measures of variability (e.g., coefficient of variation) being comparable, their ranges revealed a clinically significant difference between them. We also found that different physiological variables were predictors of the discrepancy between the consecutive measurements made by the two devices, which is likely due to their distinct modes of operation. The evidence base for PWV reproducibility is limited, and more research is needed to deepen our understanding of the variation in arterial stiffness over time, as well as fluctuations within a population group and in an intervention setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Podrug et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: