7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Noninvasive Estimation of Aortic Stiffness Through Different Approaches : Comparison With Intra-Aortic Recordings

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Aortic pulse wave velocity is a worldwide accepted index to evaluate aortic stiffness and can be assessed noninvasively by several methods. This study sought to determine if commonly used noninvasive devices can all accurately estimate aortic pulse wave velocity. Pulse wave velocity was estimated in 102 patients (aged 65±13 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography with 7 noninvasive devices and compared with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. Devices evaluating carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ET, PulsePen ETT, and SphygmoCor) showed a strong agreement between each other ( r>0.83) and with invasive aortic pulse wave velocity. The mean difference ±SD with the invasive pulse wave velocity was -0.73±2.83 m/s ( r=0.64) for Complior-Analyse: 0.20±2.54 m/s ( r=0.71) for PulsePen-ETT: -0.04±2.33 m/s ( r=0.78) for PulsePen ET; and -0.61±2.57 m/s ( r=0.70) for SphygmoCor. The finger-toe pulse wave velocity, evaluated by pOpmètre, showed only a weak relationship with invasive aortic recording (mean difference ±SD =-0.44±4.44 m/s; r=0.41), and with noninvasive carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity measurements ( r<0.33). Pulse wave velocity estimated through a proprietary algorithm by BPLab (v.5.03 and v.6.02) and Mobil-O-Graph showed a weaker agreement with invasive pulse wave velocity compared with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (mean difference ±SD =-0.71±3.55 m/s, r=0.23; 1.04±2.27 m/s, r=0.77; and -1.01±2.54 m/s, r=0.71, respectively), revealing a negative proportional bias at Bland-Altman plot. Aortic pulse wave velocity values provided by BPLab and Mobil-O-Graph were entirely dependent on age-squared and peripheral systolic blood pressure (cumulative r2=0.98 and 0.99, respectively). Thus, among the methods evaluated, only those assessing carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (Complior Analyse, PulsePen ETT, PulsePen ET, and SphygmoCor) appear to be reliable approaches for estimation of aortic stiffness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Age-associated elongation of the ascending aorta in adults.

          To determine whether human aorta lengthens with aging and to evaluate the impact of the hypothesized aortic elongation on pulse wave velocity (PWV) measurements. Although it is generally thought that the aorta becomes tortuous with aging, there has been no systematic study to date in healthy adults to determine if this is so. Such age-related aortic elongation may be a confounding factor for the PWV measurement in elderly people. Arterial lengths were computed by the 3-dimensional transverse magnetic resonance image arterial tracing of the aorta and carotid and iliac arteries in 256 apparently healthy adults (age 19 to 79 years). The ascending aorta was greater with advancing age (r = 0.72), whereas the lengths of the descending aorta and carotid and iliac arteries were not associated with age. The elongation of the ascending aorta was associated with the corresponding increases in aortic PWV (beta = 0.50) and brachial/aortic pulse pressure ratio (beta = 0.24), which is an index of pulse wave amplification. The straight distance between carotid and femoral sites (car-fem), the most popular arterial length measurement, overestimated the aortic length measured with the magnetic resonance image by approximately 25%. The most accurate arterial length estimation was the distance obtained by subtracting carotid length from the car-fem, with <5% difference from the magnetic resonance image-measured length. Because the ascending aorta was omitted or subtracted from the length estimation in PWV, the impact of age-related elongation of the aorta on PWV was small. The aorta lengthens with age, even in healthy humans, due primarily to the elongation of the ascending aorta. Age-related aortic elongation has little impact on PWV measurements, as the ascending aorta, which undergoes lengthening with age, is not included in the arterial length measurements.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Noninvasive determination of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity depends critically on assessment of travel distance: a comparison with invasive measurement.

            European Society of Hypertension guidelines recommend use of carotid- femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) as a favored measure of aortic stiffness. However, there is no consensus on the measurement of distance travelled by the pulse wave along the aorta to the femoral artery. The aim of our study was to compare cfPWV, calculated with commonly used noninvasive methods for travel distance assessment, against aortic PWV measured invasively. One hundred and thirty-five patients had aortic PWV measured invasively during cardiac catheterization, from the delay in wave foot and distance travelled as the catheter was withdrawn from the ascending aorta to the aortic bifurcation. On the following day, noninvasive cfPWV was assessed, using the SphygmoCor system, relating the delay between carotid and femoral wavefoot to travel distance, estimated with five different methods on body surface. Mean travel times were in good agreement [(travel time) TTinvasive was 63 ms, TTnoninvasive was 59.3 ms, Spearman's R: 0.8, P < 0.00001]. Mean PWVinvasive was 8.5 m/s. CfPWV, as assessed noninvasively, depended largely on the method used for travel distance estimation: 11.5, 9.9, 8.7, 11.9, and 9.6 m/s, using direct carotid-femoral distance, carotid-femoral minus carotid-suprasternal notch distances, suprasternal notch-femoral minus carotid-suprasternal notch distances, suprasternal notch-femoral plus carotid-suprasternal notch distances, and suprasternal notch-symphysis distance, respectively. There was acceptable correspondence between PWVinvasive and cfPWVnoninvasive (Spearman's R: 0.73-0.77, P < 0.0001). For noninvasive assessment of cfPWV, estimation of pulse wave travel distance is critical. Best agreement with invasive measurements was found for the method of subtracting carotid-suprasternal notch distance from suprasternal notch-femoral distance.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              ARTERY Society guidelines for validation of non-invasive haemodynamic measurement devices: Part 1, arterial pulse wave velocity

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Hypertension
                Hypertension
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0194-911X
                1524-4563
                July 2019
                July 2019
                : 74
                : 1
                : 117-129
                Affiliations
                [1 ]From the Department of Cardiovascular Neural and Metabolic Sciences, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Milan, Italy (P.S., A.G., A.F., G.P.)
                [2 ]Department of Interventional Cardiology, Policlinico di Monza, Monza, Italy (F.S., G.S.)
                [3 ]Department of Medical, Surgical and Health Sciences, University of Trieste, Italy (M.R., C.B., G.F., R.C.)
                [4 ]Department of Molecular Medicine (F.M.), IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, University of Pavia, Italy
                [5 ]Department of Internal Medicine and Therapeutics (L.S.), IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, University of Pavia, Italy
                [6 ]Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy (A.G., A.S., G.P.)
                [7 ]Department of Cardiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China (L.G.)
                [8 ]Pulse Wave Consulting, St Leu La Foret, France (S.C.M.)
                [9 ]Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia (A.P.A.).
                Article
                10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.12853
                31132954
                25d1ef99-5df9-4188-9350-f35efb055667
                © 2019
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article