[Back]

T. Weber, S. Wassertheurer, B. Hametner, M. Rammer, B. Eber:
"Comparison of 4 Methods to assess pulse wave velocity: invasive, carotid femoral, travel distance estimation from height and estimation from waveforms";
Journal of Hypertension, 31 (2013), 81 - 82.

Objertive: To compare different metbods to assess aortic pulse wave velocity(PWV): iuva.sive measurement (iuv PWV), carotid-femoral measurement(cf PWV) witb subtracted metbad for travel distance estimation, non-invasive measurement witb travel distance estimation by a body-height based formula (PWV formula), and non-invasive estimation from single-poiut wavefonns, age and systolic blood ptessure wit11 ARCSolver algoritlun (ARCS PWV).
Design and methods: We petfonned iuvasive measurement of PWV in 915
patients undergoing cardiac cat11eterization (mean age 61 years, range '27-87 years), and non-iuvasive assessments of PWV on alteruate days, u.sing carotid,radialandfemoral tonomelly (SphygmoCor system).
Resuits: Blood ptessures (systolic I diastolic / mean) were iu close agreement at tbe timeof iuvasiveand non iuvasive PWV assessment (141/70 / 99 vs 137 / 81
I 100 rum Hg). Invasive and non-iuvasive u·ansit times were su'ikiugly siulilar (62.5 vs 62.4 msec). In the entire group, mean PWV values were close to each othet~ iuv PWV was 8.7 mlsec, cf PWV, PWV forumla and ARCS PWV all were 8 5 nllsec. Correlation betweeu inv PWV and non-iuvasive estiruates was closest for ARCS PWV (r=0.70) and was significantly better (p<O.OI) tltan betweeu iuv PWV and cf PWV or PWV fommla (r=0.60 for botb). Cf PWV overestimated iuv PWV iu younger patients by I rufsec and uuderestimated iuv PWV iu older patients by 1.3 mlsec, wbereas a good agreemeut was pteseut in patients from
50-70 years of age. ARCS P\VV differed from inv PWV by no more than 0.3 nll sec across all age groups - Figure (see the following page).
Condusion: A novel metbad to estimate a01tic PWV (ARCSolver lgot'itlun) shows good agreemeut witb Ute iuvasive gold-standard in a !arge group of patients.