Key result
Office carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (8.7 m/s) differed significantly from 24-hour ambulatory oscillometric measurements (7.4 m/s) (P<0.05), suggesting the methods are not interchangeable.
Why the study?
Pulse wave velocity can be measured by different methods including 24 h monitoring, but comparisons between office and ambulatory PWVs and their changes after lifestyle or medical interventions were needed.
Are office and ambulatory pulse wave velocity measurements interchangeable, and how do they change after lifestyle or medical interventions in hypertension?
Cross-Sectional (n=105)
Are office and ambulatory pulse wave velocity measurements interchangeable, and how do they change after lifestyle or medical interventions in hypertension?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 7.4%
p-value: p=< 0.05
Office tonometric and ambulatory oscillometric methods for measuring pulse wave velocity yield significantly different values and respond differently to interventions, indicating they are not interchangeable.
Office and ambulatory PWV methods differ and respond inconsistently to interventions; leaves open optimal stiffness monitoring in hypertension.
OBJECTIVE: Pulse wave velocity (PWV), the most accepted biomarker of arterial stiffening can be measured by different methods and in the past decade, its 24 h monitoring has also become available. The aim of our study was to compare office and ambulatory PWVs and in a proportion of patients to compare the changes of PWVs after the initiation of lifestyle modifications or antihypertensive medication. METHODS: Office carotid-femoral PWV was measured with the tonometric PulsePen device (PP PWV), first hour and 24 h ambulatory oscillometric PWVs were evaluated with Mobil-O-Graph (MOB first hour PWV and MOB 24 h PWV, respectively). In new hypertensive patients, the measurements were repeated 3 months after the initiation of antihypertensive medication. In white-coat hypertensive patients after lifestyle modifications the measurements were repeated at 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred and five participants were involved with 22 new hypertensive and 22 white-coat hypertensive (WhHT) patients. PP PWV [8.7 (7.3-9.9) m/s] differed from MOB first hour PWV [7.3 (6.5-8.8) m/s] and MOB 24 h PWV [7.4 (6.4-8.8) m/s] as well (P < 0.05). PP PWV significantly decreased both in hypertensive [by 0.9 (0.4-1.5) m/s, P < 0.05] and WhHT patients [by 0.3 (-0.1 to 1) m/s, P < 0.05]. MOB first hour PWV did not change neither in hypertensive patients, nor in WhHT patients. MOB 24 h PWV decreased only in hypertensive patients [by 0.2 (0-0.6) m/s], which was less pronounced compared with PP PWV (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The significant differences observed both in the cross-sectional and in the prospective parts of our study suggests that the two methods are not interchangeable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=105). Office carotid-femoral PWV (PulsePen) vs. Ambulatory oscillometric PWV (Mobil-O-Graph) was evaluated on Pulse wave velocity (PWV) (p=< 0.05). Office carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (8.7 m/s) differed significantly from 24-hour ambulatory oscillometric measurements (7.4 m/s) (P<0.05), suggesting the methods are not interchangeable.