Different Methods for Measurements and Estimation of Pulse Wave Velocity are not Interchangeable

Abstract

BackgroundCarotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (c–f PWV) is a gold standard for the arterial stiffness measurement and important biomarker for the assessment of the cardiovascular (CV) risk. Recent studies have focused on 24-h measurements of arterial stiffness and estimated PWV (ePWV). The aim of this study is to analyze agreement of office c–f PWV measurements (SphygmoCor) with 24-h oscillometric measurements (Mobil-O-Graph and Arteriograph), and with ePWV.ResultsThis study included 154 patients with primary hypertension (average age 38.75 ± 12.65). Arterial stiffness has been measured in the office with SphygmoCor and 24 h with two oscillometric methods (Mobil-O-Graph and Arteriograph). ePWV was calculated using validated equation. PWV values obtained in office (SphygmoCor) showed higher average values compared to both 24-h oscillometric measurements of PWV and ePWV. The mean values of 24-h PWV measured by Arteriograph were higher compared to values obtained with Mobil-O-Graph. The measurement of PWV over 24 h using the Arteriograph is the most accurate among the methods that were compared with the office PWV measurements (accuracy of 0.989). However, the most precise method was the Mobil-O-Graph (0.631), and the highest degree of agreement also was shown with the Mobil-O-Graph (concordance coefficient correlation (CCC) = 0.447). The smallest deviation (TDI) and the highest probability of overlapping (CP) were observed with ePWV (TDI = 45.524, CP = 0.322, respectively).ConclusionIn our group of young treated mild hypertensive patients with low CV risk, we found weak agreements between cfPWV and 24-h PWV. These methods are not interchangeable.