| Summary: | Objective: Pulse Wave Velocity (PWV) can be measured between different sites. Here we used two different aspects to assess the PWV; the standard method Carotid-Femoral (CF) Sphygmocor (AtCorMedical – Australia) and the pOpmetre ® (Axelife SAS – France) which uses the Finger to Toe (FT) signals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between FT-PWV and CF-PWV and to test the robustness of pOpmetre ® build-in algorithm.
Design and method: CF and FT PWV was measured in 150 subjects. MatLab was used to calculate FT-PWV from pOpmetre ® waveforms using four methods: maximum of second derivative (used by pOpmetre ®), intersecting tangents, 10% threshold and the cross correlation method.
Results: Using built in algorithms, the comparisons of the PWVs and transit times showed a good agreement between the two methods. FT-PWV correlated with CF-PWV (r2=0.51; p<0.001) and transit time (r2=0.62; p<0.001). The best correlation between FT and CF was observed with the maximum of the second derivative algorithm (PWV: r2=0.56; p<0.001), transit time (r2=0.61; p<0.001). Other algorithms showed weaker correlations: for PWV, intersecting tangents, r2=0.37, 10% upstroke, r2=0.35, cross-correlation, r2=0.22.
Conclusions: This study showed that pOpmetre ® is well correlated with reference methods and the wave foot detection algorithm used by popmetre ® gave the best correlation comparing to other algorithms. The FT-PWV technique has correct agreement with the reference technique, however further studies are needed to validate FT-PWV method in larger populations. Compared to CF-PWV, FT-PWV is faster, simpler to perform and more acceptable to patients.
|
|---|