Comparing oscillometric and tonometric methods to assess pulse wave velocity: a population-based study

Area of Science:

• Cardiovascular Physiology
• Biomedical Engineering
• Diagnostic Technologies

Background:

• Oscillometric pulse wave velocity (o-PWV) is a non-invasive, operator-independent method for estimating arterial stiffness.
• Tonometric carotid-femoral measurements (cf-PWV) are considered the gold-standard for non-invasive aortic stiffness assessment.
• No prior studies have directly compared o-PWV and cf-PWV in the general population.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the accuracy and agreement of oscillometric pulse wave velocity (o-PWV) with the gold-standard tonometric method (cf-PWV) for assessing arterial stiffness.
• To investigate the influence of age and cardiovascular risk factors on the agreement between o-PWV and cf-PWV.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 1162 subjects comparing o-PWV and cf-PWV measurements.
• Bland and Altman analysis to assess agreement between 24-hour o-PWV and cf-PWV.
• Evaluation of the impact of age and systolic blood pressure (SBP) on both o-PWV and cf-PWV variability.

Main Results:

• A mean difference of -0.31 m/sec was observed between o-PWV and cf-PWV (p ≤ 0.001).
• No significant differences were found between cf-PWV and o-PWV in subjects without cardiovascular risk factors.
• o-PWV tended to underestimate arterial stiffness in subjects under 50 years and overestimate it in those over 50 years (p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions:

• Oscillometric PWV provides reliable arterial stiffness estimates in the general population, showing satisfactory agreement with the tonometric method.
• Age-related biases exist, with o-PWV underestimating stiffness in younger individuals and overestimating it in older ones, though likely not clinically significant.
• The agreement is best in subjects without cardiovascular risk factors or known vascular damage.