Key result
Smartphone LiDAR shows ~0.94 agreement with tape measurement for cfPWV calculation.
Why the study?
Tape measurement of the carotid-femoral distance for cfPWV assessment typically requires an assistant, prompting evaluation of the concordance and intra-observer reliability of smartphone-based LiDAR distance measurements compared with traditional tape measurement.
Does smartphone-based LiDAR technology provide concordant and reliable superficial carotid-femoral distance measurements and cfPWV calculations compared to traditional tape measurement in adult participants?
Observational (n=46)
Does smartphone-based LiDAR technology provide concordant and reliable superficial carotid-femoral distance measurements and cfPWV calculations compared to traditional tape measurement in adult participants?
Smartphone-based LiDAR telemetry provides superficial carotid-femoral distance measurements and cfPWV estimates that are highly concordant with traditional tape measurements, offering a reliable single-operator alternative for aortic stiffness assessment.
Smartphone LiDAR may enable solo cfPWV distance measurement; leaves open validation of concordance and reliability in larger cohorts.
Carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) is the gold standard for non-invasive assessment of aortic stiffness. Tape measurement of the carotid-femoral distance typically requires an assistant to hold the tape while the operator maintains the Doller transducer position. This study assessed the concordance and intra-observer reliability of distance measurements obtained via smartphone-based light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology compared with traditional tape measurement. A cohort of 46 adult participants (mean age, 50.0±12.7 years) underwent Doppler ultrasound evaluation to determine carotid and femoral pulse transit times. The operator measured the superficial carotid-femoral distance using tape and smartphone LiDAR in alternating sequences. Duplicate measurements were taken following a washout period to evaluate intra-observer reliability. LiDAR distance measurements strongly agreed with tape measurements (ICC (2,1) = 0.92, 95% CI 0.81-0.97; mean bias <0.01 m). The resulting cfPWV calculations demonstrated good agreement (ICC (2,1) = 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-0.98; mean bias, 0.03 m/s). Both modalities exhibited high intra-observer reliability (tape ICC (3,1) = 0.98; LiDAR ICC (3,1) = 0.99). The diagnostic classification for elevated cfPWV (> 10 m/s) showed near-perfect concordance between the methods (kappa > 0.98). Smartphone-based LiDAR telemetry provides distance measurements and cfPWV estimates that are highly concordant with traditional tape measurements, offering a reliable single-operator alternative for superficial distance acquisition. While these findings confirm technical equivalence and intra-observer reliability, further studies incorporating reference standards and quantitative time-motion analyses are required to confirm the clinical workflow advantages of this method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
I.N. Posokhov (2026) conducted an observational in Aortic stiffness assessment (n=46). Smartphone-based light detection and ranging (LiDAR) carotid-femoral distance measurement vs. Traditional tape measurement was evaluated on Concordance of superficial carotid-femoral distance and resulting cfPWV calculations (ICC (2,1) 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-0.98). Smartphone-based LiDAR carotid-femoral distance measurement strongly agreed with traditional tape measurement for cfPWV calculation (ICC 0.94; 95% CI 0.86-0.98; mean bias 0.03 m/s).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: