Search

Wave reflection at central arteries consists of a major component of left ventricular afterload. Central augmentation index (AIx) is the most widely used surrogate of wave reflection. Recent technological developments now provide the ability to obtain, non-invasively, aortic, or carotid pressure waves and measure AIx based on various algorithms of pulse wave analysis. The aim of this study was to compare AIx measurements performed by the Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph apparatuses. Recordings by each device in randomized order were performed with 5-minute interval at 211 individuals (age 55.1 ± 14.1 years, 67.8% males) who underwent diagnostic cardiovascular assessment. All measurements were obtained at the supine position, and AIx was calculated using the formula AIx = 100 × (Augmentation pressure)/(Pulse Pressure). Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Mean difference (bias) ± one standard deviation of difference (with limits of agreement) of AIx between different devices was as follows: (a) Mobil-O-Graph vs Complior: -2.1 ± 14.8% (-31.1% to 26.9%), (b) Arteriograph vs Complior: 12.9 ± 14.6% (-15.7% to 41.5%), and (c) Mobil-O-Graph vs Arteriograph: -10.8 ± 16.9% (-43.9% to 22.3%). The three examined devices exerted significant differences in central AIx estimation which makes the three devices non-interchangeable for wave reflection assessment. However, the Mobil-O-Graph device showed the highest agreement (lowest bias) with the Complior system as regards to the AIx measurement., (©2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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.