P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHOD

Objective: To compare measurements of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) using two cuff-based devices (Vicorder and XCEL), with a widely-used tonometric method (SphygmoCor). Methods: Comparative measurements of PWV were made using the SphygmoCor, XCEL and Vicorder devices in 91 individuals (...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: J. Woodcock-Smith, L. Day, J. Smith, K. Miles, I. Wilkinson, C. McEniery
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Atlantis Press 2013-11-01
Series:Artery Research
Online Access:https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125938966/view
id doaj-267145b20faa4fcf8bff2a3a85b48278
record_format Article
spelling doaj-267145b20faa4fcf8bff2a3a85b482782020-11-25T03:04:40ZengAtlantis PressArtery Research 1876-44012013-11-0171010.1016/j.artres.2013.10.072P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHODJ. Woodcock-SmithL. DayJ. SmithK. MilesI. WilkinsonC. McEnieryObjective: To compare measurements of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) using two cuff-based devices (Vicorder and XCEL), with a widely-used tonometric method (SphygmoCor). Methods: Comparative measurements of PWV were made using the SphygmoCor, XCEL and Vicorder devices in 91 individuals (mean±SD age 62±18 years; range 20–89 years). All path length and PWV measurements were made as per manufacturers’ instructions, following at least 10min supine rest. Readings were made in triplicate with each device and the average values compared. The order in which devices were used was random. Since the Vicorder includes an optional algorithm to adjust for the influence of the additional femoral segment on measured PWV, both unadjusted (Vicorder) and adjusted (Vicorder_adj) values were analysed. Results: PWV ranged from 4.47m/s–14.60m/s (SphygmoCor), 3.70m/s–14.03m/s (XCEL), 4.40m/s–14.20m/s (Vicorder) and 3.60m/s–16.63m/s (Vicorder_adj). The XCEL and Vicorder PWV values were significantly correlated with SphygmoCor values (Figure 1). PWV measured with the XCEL was significantly lower than SphygmoCor-derived PWV (mean±SD of difference 0.42m±1.74m/s, P=0.03), whereas Vicorder (−0.21±1.88m/s) and Vicorder_adj (0.07±2.21m/s) were not significantly different from SphygmoCor, albeit with somewhat higher SDs. Conclusion: Cuff-based devices provide reasonable estimates of PWV when directly compared with a widely used tonometric method. Use of the correction algorithm in the Vicorder device resulted in a closer estimate of the average PWV as measured with SphygmoCor, but a greater spread of values around the mean. Figure 1Correlation between SphygmoCor-derived PWV and XCEL (A), Vicorder (B) and Vicorder-adj (C) PWV values.https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125938966/view
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author J. Woodcock-Smith
L. Day
J. Smith
K. Miles
I. Wilkinson
C. McEniery
spellingShingle J. Woodcock-Smith
L. Day
J. Smith
K. Miles
I. Wilkinson
C. McEniery
P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHOD
Artery Research
author_facet J. Woodcock-Smith
L. Day
J. Smith
K. Miles
I. Wilkinson
C. McEniery
author_sort J. Woodcock-Smith
title P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHOD
title_short P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHOD
title_full P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHOD
title_fullStr P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHOD
title_full_unstemmed P2.10 CUFF-BASED ASSESSMENT OF CAROTID-FEMORAL PULSE WAVE VELOCITY: COMPARISON WITH A WIDELY-USED TONOMETRIC METHOD
title_sort p2.10 cuff-based assessment of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity: comparison with a widely-used tonometric method
publisher Atlantis Press
series Artery Research
issn 1876-4401
publishDate 2013-11-01
description Objective: To compare measurements of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) using two cuff-based devices (Vicorder and XCEL), with a widely-used tonometric method (SphygmoCor). Methods: Comparative measurements of PWV were made using the SphygmoCor, XCEL and Vicorder devices in 91 individuals (mean±SD age 62±18 years; range 20–89 years). All path length and PWV measurements were made as per manufacturers’ instructions, following at least 10min supine rest. Readings were made in triplicate with each device and the average values compared. The order in which devices were used was random. Since the Vicorder includes an optional algorithm to adjust for the influence of the additional femoral segment on measured PWV, both unadjusted (Vicorder) and adjusted (Vicorder_adj) values were analysed. Results: PWV ranged from 4.47m/s–14.60m/s (SphygmoCor), 3.70m/s–14.03m/s (XCEL), 4.40m/s–14.20m/s (Vicorder) and 3.60m/s–16.63m/s (Vicorder_adj). The XCEL and Vicorder PWV values were significantly correlated with SphygmoCor values (Figure 1). PWV measured with the XCEL was significantly lower than SphygmoCor-derived PWV (mean±SD of difference 0.42m±1.74m/s, P=0.03), whereas Vicorder (−0.21±1.88m/s) and Vicorder_adj (0.07±2.21m/s) were not significantly different from SphygmoCor, albeit with somewhat higher SDs. Conclusion: Cuff-based devices provide reasonable estimates of PWV when directly compared with a widely used tonometric method. Use of the correction algorithm in the Vicorder device resulted in a closer estimate of the average PWV as measured with SphygmoCor, but a greater spread of values around the mean. Figure 1Correlation between SphygmoCor-derived PWV and XCEL (A), Vicorder (B) and Vicorder-adj (C) PWV values.
url https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125938966/view
work_keys_str_mv AT jwoodcocksmith p210cuffbasedassessmentofcarotidfemoralpulsewavevelocitycomparisonwithawidelyusedtonometricmethod
AT lday p210cuffbasedassessmentofcarotidfemoralpulsewavevelocitycomparisonwithawidelyusedtonometricmethod
AT jsmith p210cuffbasedassessmentofcarotidfemoralpulsewavevelocitycomparisonwithawidelyusedtonometricmethod
AT kmiles p210cuffbasedassessmentofcarotidfemoralpulsewavevelocitycomparisonwithawidelyusedtonometricmethod
AT iwilkinson p210cuffbasedassessmentofcarotidfemoralpulsewavevelocitycomparisonwithawidelyusedtonometricmethod
AT cmceniery p210cuffbasedassessmentofcarotidfemoralpulsewavevelocitycomparisonwithawidelyusedtonometricmethod
_version_ 1724680524006424576