Noninvasive Estimation of Aortic Stiffness Through Different Approaches

• Published in: Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. 1979) Tex. 1979), 2019-07, Vol.74 (1), p.HYPERTENSIONAHA11912853-129
• Main Authors: Salvi, Paolo, Scalise, Filippo, Rovina, Matteo, Moretti, Francesco, Salvi, Lucia, Grillo, Andrea, Gao, Lan, Baldi, Corrado, Faini, Andrea, Furlanis, Giulia, Sorropago, Antonio, Millasseau, Sandrine C, Sorropago, Giovanni, Carretta, Renzo, Avolio, Alberto P, Parati, Gianfranco
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1524-4563
• DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.12853

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