Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 17, 2026
Pulse Wave Velocity Testing in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging
Published on: February 7, 2014
Noninvasive methods to assess pulse wave velocity: comparison with the invasive gold standard and relationship with
Thomas Weber1, Siegfried Wassertheurer, Bernhard Hametner
1aCardiology Department, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, Wels bParacelsus Medical University, Salzburg cAustrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
Objectives:
To compare noninvasive methods to assess pulse wave velocity (PWV) with the invasive gold standard in terms of absolute values, age-related changes, and relationship with subclinical organ damage.
Methods:
Invasive aortic PWV (aoPWVinv) was measured in 915 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization (mean age 61 years, range 27-87 years). Carotid-femoral PWV (cfPWV) was measured with tonometry, using subtracted distance (cfPWVsub), body height-based estimated distance (cfPWVbh), direct distance × 0.8 (cfPWVdir0.8), and caliper-based distance (cfPWVcalip) for travel distance calculation. Aortic PWV was estimated (aoPWVestim) from single-point radial waveforms, age, and SBP.
Results:
Invasive and noninvasive transit times were strikingly similar (median values 60.8 versus 61.7 ms). In the entire group, median value of aoPWVinv was 8.3 m/s, of cfPWVsub and cfPWVbh 8.1 m/s, and of aoPWVest 8.5 m/s. CfPWVsub overestimated aoPWVinv in younger patients by 0.7 m/s and underestimated aoPWVinv in older patients by 1.7 m/s, with good agreement from 50 to 70 years of age. AoPWVestim differed from aoPWVinv by no more than 0.4 m/s across all age groups. CfPWVdir0.8, measured in 632 patients, overestimated aoPWVinv by 1.7 m/s in younger patients, with good agreement in middle-aged and older patients. CfPWVcalip, measured in 336 patients, underestimated aoPWVinv in all ages. In 536 patients with preserved systolic function, aoPWVinv and aoPWVestim were superior to cfPWVs in predicting coronary atherosclerosis, renal function impairment, left atrial enlargement, and diastolic dysfunction.
Conclusion:
CfPWVsub, cfPWVdir0.8, and aoPWVestim are reasonable surrogates for aoPWVinv. AoPWVinv predicts subclinical organ damage better than cfPWVs, and as good as aoPWVestim.
Related Concept Videos
01:13Special considerations while measuring pulse
01:16Pulse
The pulse serves as a clinical...
01:19Assessing Blood pressure using a doppler ultrasound
Pre-Procedural Guidelines for Doppler Ultrasound Blood Pressure Assessment:
Preparation of Equipment:
01:27Assessment of the Cardiovascular System III: Palpation
Jugular Venous Pressure (JVP) Measurement
Position the patient at a thirty- to forty-five-degree angle or in a semi-fowler's position. Look for the highest point of pulsation in the internal jugular vein and measure the vertical distance to the angle of Loius or sternal angle. A normal JVP is 3-4 cm above...
01:11Assessment of radial pulse
The radial pulse, located at the wrist, is often the preferred site for assessing peripheral pulse because of its accessibility and dependability. The process of determining the radial pulse involves several steps:
01:30Equipments Used To Measure Blood Pressure
This invasive approach involves cannulating a peripheral artery. During each cardiac contraction, pressure generates mechanical motion within the catheter, transmitted through rigid, fluid-filled tubing to a transducer. This transducer converts mechanical motion into electrical signals displayed as waveforms on a monitor. An automatic flushing system prevents blood backflow. Due to the potential risk of unexpected arterial blood loss, this method is primarily used in intensive...