The Esaote MyLab70 ultrasound system has been extensively used to evaluate arterial properties. Since it is reaching end-of-service-life, ongoing studies are forced to seek an alternative, with some opting for the Esaote MyLabOne. Biases might exist between the two systems, which, if uncorrected, could potentially lead to the misinterpretation of results. This study aims to evaluate a potential bias between the two devices. Moreover, by comparing two identical MyLabOne systems, this study also aims to investigate whether biases estimated between the MyLabOne and MyLab70 employed in this study could be generalized to any other pair of similar scanners. Using a phantom set-up, we performed n = 60 measurements to compare MyLab70 to MyLabOne and n = 40 measurements to compare the two MyLabOne systems. Comparisons were performed to measure diameter, wall thickness, and distension. Both comparisons led to significant biases for the diameter (relative bias: −0.27% and −0.30% for the inter- and intra-scanner model, respectively, p < 0.05) and wall thickness (relative bias: 0.38% and −1.23% for inter- and intra-scanner model, respectively p < 0.05), but not for distension (relative bias: 0.48% and −0.12% for inter- and intra-scanner model, respectively, p > 0.05). The biases estimated here cannot be generalized to any other pair of similar scanners. Therefore, longitudinal studies with large sample sizes switching between scanners should perform a preliminary comparison to evaluate potential biases between their devices. Furthermore, caution is warranted when using biases reported in similar comparative studies. Further work should evaluate the presence and relevance of similar biases in human data.

Non‐invasive ultrasound (US) imaging enables the assessment of the properties of superficial blood vessels. Various modes can be used for vascular characteristics analysis, ranging from radiofrequency (RF) data, Doppler‐ and standard B/M‐mode imaging, to more recent ultra‐high frequency and ultrafast techniques. The aim of the present work was to provide an overview of the current state‐of‐the‐art non‐invasive US technologies and corresponding vascular ageing characteristics from a technological perspective. Following an introduction about the basic concepts of the US technique, the characteristics considered in this review are clustered into: 1) vessel wall structure; 2) dynamic elastic properties, and 3) reactive vessel properties. The overview shows that ultrasound is a versatile, non‐invasive, and safe imaging technique that can be adopted for obtaining information about function, structure, and reactivity in superficial arteries. The most suitable setting for a specific application must be selected according to spatial and temporal resolution requirements. The usefulness of standardization in the validation process and performance metric adoption emerges. Computer‐based techniques should always be preferred to manual measures, as long as the algorithms and learning procedures are transparent and well described, and the performance leads to better results. Identification of a minimal clinically important difference is a crucial point for drawing conclusions regarding robustness of the techniques and for the translation into practice of any biomarker.

Purpose: Carotid artery properties can be evaluated with high accuracy and reproducibility using multiple M-line ultrasound. However, the cost of multiple M-line-based imaging modalities and the extensive operator expertise requirements hamper the large-scale application for arterial properties assessment, particularly in resource-constrained settings. This study is aimed to assess the performance of a single M-line approach as an affordable and easy-to-use alternative to multiple M-line imaging for screening purposes.Methods: We used triplicate longitudinal common carotid artery (CCA) ultrasound recordings (17 M-lines covering about 16 mm, at 500 frames per second) of 500 subjects from The Maastricht Study to assess the validity and reproducibility of a single against multiple M-line approach. The multiple M-line measures were obtained by averaging over all available 17 lines, whereas the middle M-line was used as a proxy for the single M-line approach.Results: Diameter, intima-media thickness (IMT), and Young's elastic modulus (YEM) were not significantly different between the single and multiple M-line approaches (p &gt; 0.07). Distension and distensibility coefficient (DC) did differ significantly (p &lt; 0.001), however, differences were technically irrelevant. Similarly, Bland-Altman analysis revealed good agreement between the two approaches. The single M-line approach, compared to multiple M-line, exhibited an acceptable reproducibility coefficient of variation (CV) for diameter (2.5 vs. 2.2%), IMT (11.9 vs. 7.9%), distension (10 vs. 9.4%), DC (10.9 vs. 10.2%), and YEM (26.5 vs. 20.5%). Furthermore, in our study population, both methods showed a similar capability to detect age-related differences in arterial stiffness.Conclusion: Single M-line ultrasound appears to be a promising tool to estimate anatomical and functional CCA properties with very acceptable validity and reproducibility. Based on our results, we might infer that image-free, single M-line tools could be suited for screening and for performing population studies in low-resource settings worldwide. Whether the comparison between single and multiple M-line devices will yield similar findings requires further study.