Key result
Aortic pulse wave velocity assessed by suprasystolic brachial oscillometry in Vascular Explorer showed only weak correlation with traditional diastolic oscillometry in Vicorder (r = 0.196, p = 0.04).
Why the study?
Does suprasystolic brachial oscillometry (Vascular Explorer) provide comparable arterial stiffness measurements to diastolic oscillometry (Vicorder) in a general population sample?
Observational (n=56)
No
Does suprasystolic brachial oscillometry (Vascular Explorer) provide comparable arterial stiffness measurements to diastolic oscillometry (Vicorder) in a general population sample?
While diastolic oscillometry-derived pulse wave velocity modes are comparable between Vicorder and Vascular Explorer, aortic PWV assessed by suprasystolic brachial oscillometry is not related to traditional diastolic measurements.
Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AI) are independent predictors of cardiovascular health. However, the comparability of multiple oscillometric modalities currently available for their assessment was not studied in detail. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between indices of arterial stiffness assessed by diastolic and suprasystolic oscillometry.In total, 56 volunteers from the general population (23 males; median age 70 years [interquartile range: 65-72 years]) were recruited into observational feasibility study to evaluate the carotid-femoral/aortic PWV (cf/aoPWV), brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV), and AI assessed by 2 devices: Vicorder (VI) applying diastolic, right-sided oscillometry for the determination of all 3 indices, and Vascular explorer (VE) implementing single-point, suprasystolic brachial oscillometry (SSBO) pulse wave analysis for the assessment of cfPWV and AI. Within- and between-device correlations of measured parameters were analyzed. Furthermore, agreement of repeated measurements, intra- and inter-observer concordances were determined and compared for both devices.In VI, both baPWV and cfPWV inter-correlated well and showed good level of agreement with bilateral baPWV measured by VE (baPWV[VI]-baPWV[VE]R: overall concordance correlation coefficient [OCCC] = 0.484, mean difference = 1.94 m/s; cfPWV[VI]-baPWV[VE]R: OCCC = 0.493, mean difference = 1.0 m/s). In contrast, SSBO-derived aortic PWA (cf/aoPWA[VE]) displayed only weak correlation with cfPWV(VI) (r = 0.196; P = 0.04) and ipsilateral baPWV (cf/aoPWV[VE]R-baPWV[VE]R: r = 0.166; P = 0.08). cf/aoPWA(VE) correlated strongly with AI(VE) (right-sided: r = 0.725, P < 0.001). AI exhibited marginal between-device agreement (right-sided: OCCC = 0.298, mean difference: 6.12%). All considered parameters showed good-to-excellent repeatability giving OCCC > 0.9 for 2-point-PWV modes and right-sided AI(VE). Intra- and inter-observer concordances were similarly high except for AI yielding a trend toward better reproducibility in VE (interobserver-OCCC[VI] vs [VE] = 0.774 vs 0.844; intraobserver-OCCC[VI] vs [VE] = 0.613 vs 0.769).Both diastolic oscillometry-derived PWV modes, and AI measured either with VI or VE, are comparable and reliable alternatives for the assessment of arterial stiffness. Aortic PWV assessed by SSBO in VE is not related to the corresponding indices determined by traditional diastolic oscillometry.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Teren et al. (2016) conducted an observational in General population (arterial stiffness assessment) (n=56). Suprasystolic brachial oscillometry (Vascular Explorer) vs. Diastolic oscillometry (Vicorder) was evaluated on Correlation between carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) assessed by Vicorder and aortic pulse wave velocity assessed by Vascular Explorer (r 0.196, p=0.04). Aortic pulse wave velocity assessed by suprasystolic brachial oscillometry in Vascular Explorer showed only weak correlation with traditional diastolic oscillometry in Vicorder (r = 0.196, p = 0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: