Comparative study of methodologies for pulse wave velocity estimation
Comparative study of methodologies for pulse wave velocity estimation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/jhh.2008.42
复制
发表时间：
2008-10-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Benetos, A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Salvi, P.;Magnani, E.;Benetos, A.
通过脉搏波速度（PWV）估计的动脉硬度是心血管死亡率和发病率的独立预测因子。然而，由于所使用的各种器械之间存在差异，这些测量的临床适用性和参考PWV值的详细说明是困难的。在50名年龄在20-84岁之间的受试者中，我们比较了三种常用器械的PWV测量结果：Complior和PulsePen，两者都将主动脉PWV确定为颈动脉和股动脉压力波之间的延迟，PulseTrace通过分析指尖上采集的光电体积描记波来估计僵硬指数（SI）。每台器械测量两次PWV。PulsePen、Complior和PulseTrace的PWV变异系数分别为12.3%、12.4%和14.5%。这些测量结果进行了比较与参考方法，即，同时采集压力波使用两个眼压计。PulsePen（r = 0.99）和Complior（r = 0.83）与参考方法的相关系数较高，而PulseTrace与参考方法的相关性较低（r = 0.55）。根据Bland-Altman分析，数值的平均差异为+/- 2s.d。与参考方法相比，PulsePen、Complior和PulseTrace分别为-0.15 +/- 0.62 m/s、2.09 +/- 2.68 m/s和-1.12 +/- 4.92 m/s。本研究证实了Complior和PulsePen器械在估计PWV方面的可靠性，而PulseTrace器械确定的SI不适合作为PWV的替代品。目前的结果表明，迫切需要评估和比较不同的设备，以标准化PWV测量和建立参考值。
Arterial stiffness, estimated by pulse wave velocity (PWV), is an independent predictor of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. However, the clinical applicability of these measurements and the elaboration of reference PWV values are difficult due to differences between the various devices used. In a population of 50 subjects aged 20-84 years, we compared PWV measurements with three frequently used devices: the Complior and the PulsePen, both of which determine aortic PWV as the delay between carotid and femoral pressure wave and the PulseTrace, which estimates the Stiffness Index (SI) by analyzing photoplethysmographic waves acquired on the fingertip. PWV was measured twice by each device. Coefficient of variation of PWV was 12.3, 12.4 and 14.5% for PulsePen, Complior and PulseTrace, respectively. These measurements were compared with the reference method, that is, a simultaneous acquisition of pressure waves using two tonometers. High correlation coefficients with the reference method were observed for PulsePen (r = 0.99) and Complior (r = 0.83), whereas for PulseTrace correlation with the reference method was much lower (r = 0.55). Upon Bland-Altman analysis, mean differences of values +/- 2s.d. versus the reference method were -0.15 +/- 0.62 m/s, 2.09 +/- 2.68 m/s and -1.12 +/- 4.92 m/s, for PulsePen, Complior and PulseTrace, respectively. This study confirms the reliability of Complior and PulsePen devices in estimating PWV, while the SI determined by the PulseTrace device was found to be inappropriate as a surrogate of PWV. The present results indicate the urgent need for evaluation and comparison of the different devices to standardize PWV measurements and establish reference values.