Pulse wave analysis with two tonometric devices: a comparison study

Abstract

Pulse wave analysis is a pivotal tool to estimate central haemodynamic parameters. Available commercial devices use applanation tonometry and have been validated against invasive catheterism. We previously observed differences on a radial second systolic peak (rSPB2) between two commonly used devices: SphygmoCor (AtCor, Australia) and PulsePen (DiaTecne, Italy). The aim of our study was to further quantify differences in radial and carotid signals from the two devices.We measured radial and carotid waveforms in 38 patients with minimal changes between systolic, diastolic blood pressure and heart rate.rSBP2, mean pressure, form factor and augmentation index were different with SphygmoCor providing lower values (mean differences: 2.2 ± 3.8 mmHg; 1.5 ± 1.7 mmHg; 3.2 ± 3.5%; 4.2 ± 8.4%, respectively). Carotid augmentation index and form factor were similar. However carotid systolic pressure (cSBP) from PulsePen was higher than cSBP from SphygmoCor (2.7 ± 4.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). For both carotid and radial signals, harmonics moduli were similar across the spectrum with the exception of the 1st harmonic.PulsePen and SphygmoCor sensors are not equivalent and provide different wave shapes despite similar harmonics content with more discrepancy on radial derived parameters than on carotid derived parameters. Further studies are required to compare invasive pressure parameters to indices derived from these two devices.

Associations between Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Arterial Stiffness: A Prospective Analysis Based on the Maine-Syracuse Study

“…This finding supports the work of others [27,28,29]. Agnoletti et al [28] examined 618 T2DM patients and showed that across increasing tertiles of T2DM duration PWV increased significantly, while glycaemic control and renal function worsened [28].…”

Measurement of central augmentation index by three different methods and techniques: Agreement among Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil‐O‐Graph devices

“…Similar comparisons of AIx estimations by different devices have been previously reported, evaluating various methodologies based on: (a) different pulse acquisition technique (ie, tonometry, oscillometry, photoplethysmography), (b) different signal processing techniques (ie, with or without transfer function, algorithms for inflection points identification), and (c) different arterial sites for wave reflection estimation (ie, finger, aorta, radial, brachial, carotid arteries) (Table ). It should be acknowledged that all these differences render the interpretation and explanation of the observed discrepancies in AIx measurements among various devices quite difficult.…”

“…However, the limits of agreement in carotid AIx measurement by SphygmoCor and PulsePen (around −15% to 26%) were somewhat narrower than the limits of agreement reported in our study. In another comparison study, Agnoletti et al found that PulsePen and SphygmoCor devices are not equivalent and provide different wave shapes (despite similar harmonics content) with a greater discrepancy observed on radial than on carotid derived parameters. Jatoi et al also assessed AIx measurements by three commercial devices (Arteriograph, Complior, and SphygmoCor) in 254 untreated hypertensive patients.…”

Northern Shanghai Study: cardiovascular risk and its associated factors in the Chinese elderly—a study protocol of a prospective study design

“…Pulse wave analysis, which can be observed on the commonly used device—SphygomoCor device (AtCor, Australia),30 is measured to estimate central haemodynamic parameters 31. SphygmoCor is used to perform the applanation tonometry on a radial artery with the methodology previously described 30.…”

“…SphygmoCor is used to perform the applanation tonometry on a radial artery with the methodology previously described 30. After a 10 min rest in the supine position, the brachial BP is obtained with the SphygomoCor device.…”