Measurement of central augmentation index by three different methods and techniques: Agreement among Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph devices.
Adult
Aged
Algorithms
Angiography
/ instrumentation
Aorta
/ physiopathology
Arteries
/ diagnostic imaging
Blood Pressure
/ physiology
Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory
/ instrumentation
Cardiovascular Diseases
/ diagnosis
Carotid Arteries
/ physiopathology
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Pulse Wave Analysis
/ instrumentation
Reproducibility of Results
Supine Position
Ventricular Function, Left
/ physiology
aorta
applanation tonometry
oscillometry
pulse wave analysis
wave reflection
Journal
Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)
ISSN: 1751-7176
Titre abrégé: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888554
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2019
09 2019
Historique:
received:
21
05
2019
revised:
10
07
2019
accepted:
17
07
2019
pubmed:
30
8
2019
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
30
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Wave reflection at central arteries consists of a major component of left ventricular afterload. Central augmentation index (AIx) is the most widely used surrogate of wave reflection. Recent technological developments now provide the ability to obtain, non-invasively, aortic, or carotid pressure waves and measure AIx based on various algorithms of pulse wave analysis. The aim of this study was to compare AIx measurements performed by the Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph apparatuses. Recordings by each device in randomized order were performed with 5-minute interval at 211 individuals (age 55.1 ± 14.1 years, 67.8% males) who underwent diagnostic cardiovascular assessment. All measurements were obtained at the supine position, and AIx was calculated using the formula AIx = 100 × (Augmentation pressure)/(Pulse Pressure). Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Mean difference (bias) ± one standard deviation of difference (with limits of agreement) of AIx between different devices was as follows: (a) Mobil-O-Graph vs Complior: -2.1 ± 14.8% (-31.1% to 26.9%), (b) Arteriograph vs Complior: 12.9 ± 14.6% (-15.7% to 41.5%), and (c) Mobil-O-Graph vs Arteriograph: -10.8 ± 16.9% (-43.9% to 22.3%). The three examined devices exerted significant differences in central AIx estimation which makes the three devices non-interchangeable for wave reflection assessment. However, the Mobil-O-Graph device showed the highest agreement (lowest bias) with the Complior system as regards to the AIx measurement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31465154
doi: 10.1111/jch.13654
pmc: PMC8030305
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1386-1392Informations de copyright
©2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Blood Press. 2019 Apr;28(2):107-113
pubmed: 30668163
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Am J Hypertens. 2016 Oct;29(10):1173-8
pubmed: 27317573
Curr Pharm Des. 2009;15(3):245-53
pubmed: 19149616
High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2018 Mar;25(1):65-77
pubmed: 29081017
Hypertension. 2003 May;41(5):1016-20
pubmed: 12695415
J Hypertens. 2009 Nov;27(11):2186-91
pubmed: 19834344
J Hypertens. 2011 Jun;29(6):1115-20
pubmed: 21505351
Circulation. 1980 Jul;62(1):105-16
pubmed: 7379273
Circulation. 1989 Dec;80(6):1652-9
pubmed: 2598428
Am J Hypertens. 2013 Jan;26(1):34-41
pubmed: 23382325
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2019 Sep;21(9):1386-1392
pubmed: 31465154
J Hum Hypertens. 2010 Aug;24(8):498-504
pubmed: 20237499
Hypertension. 2005 Nov;46(5):1111-7
pubmed: 16230523
Curr Probl Cardiol. 2000 May;25(5):303-67
pubmed: 10822214
Psychol Rep. 1966 Aug;19(1):3-11
pubmed: 5942109
Physiol Meas. 2014 Sep;35(9):1837-48
pubmed: 25154391
J Hypertens. 2017 Oct;35(10):2016-2024
pubmed: 28590266
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001 Jun;51(6):507-22
pubmed: 11422010