Arteriograph and Complior devices showed acceptable agreement with Mobil-O-Graph for pulse wave velocity (mean differences 0.6 m/s and 0.5 m/s, respectively), though Mobil-O-Graph may underestimate values.
Cross-Sectional (n=316)
Do Arteriograph and Complior devices show acceptable agreement with the Mobil-O-Graph device for assessing pulse wave velocity and central systolic blood pressure in consecutive subjects?
The Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph devices demonstrate acceptable agreement for measuring pulse wave velocity and central systolic blood pressure, although the Mobil-O-Graph may slightly underestimate these markers.
Mean Difference: 0.5
PURPOSE: Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is a marker of arterial stiffness with major prognostic value. We compared Arteriograph and Complior devices with the Mobil-O-Graph for assessment of PWV and central systolic blood pressure (cSBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 316 consecutive subjects (age: 55 ± 14 years). For each individual, we measured PWV and cSBP with Arteriograph, Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and compared the readings. Differences in values among three devices were calculated for each measurement. We used Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean difference for PWV: i.0.5 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.4) between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph, ii.0.6 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.6) between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph. cSBP mean difference was 3.8 mmHg between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -12.5-20.1) and 9.2 mmHg between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -7.6-26). ICC for PWV was 0.86 between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 0.87 between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and for cSBP 0.92 and 0.91 respectively. CV for PWV was 9.5% between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 8.8% between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph. Respective values for cSBP were 6.8% and 5.1%. CONCLUSION: Our study shows acceptable agreement among the three devices regarding pulse wave analysis markers though Mobil-O-Graph appears to underestimate the values of these markers. Further studies are needed to explore the agreement between the 3 devices in various clinical settings and patient populations.
Benas et al. (Tue,) reported a cross-sectional. Arteriograph and Complior devices vs. Mobil-O-Graph was evaluated on Pulse wave velocity (PWV) (MD 0.5 m/s). Arteriograph and Complior devices showed acceptable agreement with Mobil-O-Graph for pulse wave velocity (mean differences 0.6 m/s and 0.5 m/s, respectively), though Mobil-O-Graph may underestimate values.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: