Pulse wave analysis using the Mobil-O-Graph, Arteriograph and Complior device: a comparative study

• Published in: Blood pressure Vol. 28; no. 2; pp. 107 - 113
• Main Authors: Benas, Dimitrios, Kornelakis, Michalis, Triantafyllidi, Helen, Kostelli, Gavriela, Pavlidis, George, Varoudi, Maria, Vlastos, Dimitrios, Lambadiari, Vaia, Parissis, John, Ikonomidis, Ignatios
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Taylor & Francis 04.03.2019; Taylor & Francis Group
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Arterial stiffness; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination - instrumentation; central systolic blood pressure devices; Humans; Middle Aged; Pulse Wave Analysis - instrumentation; Pulse Wave Analysis - standards; pulse wave velocity; Vascular Stiffness; Arterial stiffness; pulse wave velocity; central systolic blood pressure devices
• ISSN: 0803-7051; 1651-1999; 1651-1999
• DOI: 10.1080/08037051.2018.1564236

Purpose: Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is a marker of arterial stiffness with major prognostic value. We compared Arteriograph and Complior devices with the Mobil-O-Graph for assessment of PWV and central systolic blood pressure (cSBP). Materials and Methods: We studied 316 consecutive subjects (age: 55 ± 14 years). For each individual, we measured PWV and cSBP with Arteriograph, Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and compared the readings. Differences in values among three devices were calculated for each measurement. We used Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). Results: Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean difference for PWV: i.0.5 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.4) between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph, ii.0.6 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.6) between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph. cSBP mean difference was 3.8 mmHg between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -12.5-20.1) and 9.2 mmHg between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -7.6-26). ICC for PWV was 0.86 between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 0.87 between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and for cSBP 0.92 and 0.91 respectively. CV for PWV was 9.5% between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 8.8% between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph. Respective values for cSBP were 6.8% and 5.1%. Conclusion: Our study shows acceptable agreement among the three devices regarding pulse wave analysis markers though Mobil-O-Graph appears to underestimate the values of these markers. Further studies are needed to explore the agreement between the 3 devices in various clinical settings and patient populations.