Comparing oscillometric and tonometric methods to assess pulse wave velocity: a population-based study

BACKGROUND: Oscillometric pulse wave velocity (o-PWV) represents an attractive, non invasive and non operator-dependent method to estimate arterial stiffness. Tonometric carotid-femoral measurements (cf-PWV),are considered the gold-standard for non-invasive aortic stiffness assessment. To date, no studies in the general population comparing the two methods have been performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: 1162 subjects were analysed. O-PWV and cf-PWV showed a mean difference of −0.31 m/sec(p ≤ 0.001). No significant differences between cf-PWV and o-PWVs were observed in patients without cardiovascular risk factors. The Bland and Altman analysis showed a moderate agreement between 24 h-o-PWV and cf-PWV (mean difference −0.99, LoA 4.23 to −6.22m/s). O-PWVs underestimate and overestimate arterial stiffness under and over 50 years respectively(p ≤ 0.001). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and age differently impact cf-PWV and in office o-PWV variability (r(2) 0.35 and 0.88 respectively). In younger subjects a strong relationship between o-PWV and SBP reducing as age increases was found. Analysing the impact of age, an opposite trend was noticed. CONCLUSIONS: KEY MESSAGES: Oscillometric and tonometric PWV estimates showed a good and satisfactory agreement in the general population, above all in subjects without cardiovascular risk factors or a documented vascular damage. In comparison with tonometric values, oscillometric PWV estimates showed, however, the tendency to underestimate arterial stiffness in younger subjects and to overestimate it with increasing age, while diverging when diseases known to increase arterial stiffness are present. The magnitude of differences in PWV estimates between tonometric and oscillometric methods found in the general population appears most likely not to be significant in everyday clinical practice.