Comparison of pulse wave velocity assessed by three different techniques: Arteriograph, Complior, and Echo-tracking.

Abstract

Arterial stiffness estimated by pulse wave velocity (PWV) is an independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although recommended by the current guidelines, clinical applicability of this parameter is difficult, due to differences between the various techniques used to measure it and to biological variability. Our aim was to compare PWV assessed by 3 different commercially available systems. 100 subjects (51 ± 16 years, 45 men) were evaluated using the 3 methods: an oscillometric technique (Arteriograph, PWV-A); a piezo-electric method (Complior, PWV-C); and an high-resolution ultrasound technique implemented with an Echo-tracking system (Aloka, PWV-E). Conventional biological markers were measured. Correlations of PWV measured by the 3 methods were poor (r = 0.39, r = 0.39, and r = 0.31 for PWV-A vs. PWV-C, PWV-A vs. PWV-E, and PWV-C vs. PWV-E, respectively, all p < 0.05). By Bland-Altman analysis, mean difference (±SD) of PWV-A vs. PWV-C was -1.9 ± 2.0 m/s, of PWV-A vs. PWV-E -3.6 ± 1.9 m/s, and of PWV-C vs. PWV-E -2.7 ± 1.9 m/s, with a wide coefficient of variation (22.3, 25.7, and 25.7 %, respectively). As expected, PWV-A, PWV-C, and PWV-E correlated with other arterial stiffness parameters, such as intima-media thickness (r = 0.22, r = 0.22, and r = 0.36, respectively), E p (r = 0.37, r = 0.26, and r = 0.94, respectively), and augmentation index measured by Arteriograph method (r = 0.66, r = 0.35, and r = 0.26, respectively); all p < 0.05. Assessment of PWV is markedly dependent on the technique used to measure it, related to various methods for measuring traveled distance of the arterial wave. Our results suggest the urgent need to establish reference values of PWV for each of these techniques, separately, to be used in routine clinical practice.