Key result
An automated oscillometric device for measuring carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity showed a strong correlation (r=0.817) with gold-standard applanation tonometry across subjects with and without cardiovascular disease.
Why the study?
Aortic stiffness independently predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, making simple, rapid, and automated techniques indispensable for global risk stratification.
Does an automated oscillometric method accurately and more rapidly measure carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity compared to standard applanation tonometry in subjects with and without cardiovascular disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=176)
No
Does an automated oscillometric method accurately and more rapidly measure carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity compared to standard applanation tonometry in subjects with and without cardiovascular disease?
Effect estimate: r = 0.817
Absolute Event Rate: 9.4% vs 9.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
An automated oscillometric device provides a rapid, accurate, and less complex alternative to applanation tonometry for measuring aortic stiffness in patients with and without cardiovascular disease.
Oscillometric cfPWV may enable faster aortic stiffness assessment; leaves open whether it improves risk stratification before prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Aortic stiffness is an independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; thus, simple, rapid and preferably automated techniques are indispensable for pursuing a global risk stratification approach. We present an oscillometric technique for determination of the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), including the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, with emphasis on the training curve and procedural duration. METHODS: In a single-centre crossover study, we evaluated subjects free of known cardiovascular disease (CVD), subjects with CVD and a subgroup of subjects with peripheral artery disease (PAD) in terms of ankle-brachial index (ABI) and PWV measurements determined by oscillometry compared to tonometry. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship of the PWV measurements determined by both methods. Moreover, the time and cost of the examinations were compared. RESULTS: A total of 176 study subjects underwent assessments to obtain oscillometric and tonometric PWV measurements. The CVD-free subjects (n = 59) were younger (60.4±15.6 vs. 67.5±12.9 years, p = 0.003) than the subjects with CVD (n = 117). The PWV measurements showed significant correlations in CVD-free subjects (r = 0.797, p<0.001), in subjects with CVD (r = 0.817, p<0.001) and in the subgroup of subjects with PAD (r = 0.807, p<0.001). The examination duration was shorter for the oscillometric method than the tonometric method (4.4±0.5 vs. 9.2±0.8 min, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Using a simple and rapid automated oscillometric method, we achieved good diagnostic accuracy for the determination of aortic stiffness through the PWV in both subjects with and without CVD. This method might be helpful in daily practice in terms of saving time and reducing procedural complexity for screening for cardiovascular morbidities and vascular damage in cases of atherosclerosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lortz et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular disease and healthy subjects (n=176). Automated oscillometric device (Boso ABI system 100 PWV) vs. Applanation tonometry (SphygmoCor XCEL) was evaluated on Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) (r = 0.817, p=<0.001). An automated oscillometric device for measuring carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity showed a strong correlation (r=0.817) with gold-standard applanation tonometry across subjects with and without cardiovascular disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: