Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Physiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Stockholm, Sweden.
PLoS One. 2018 May 21;13(5):e0197019. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197019. eCollection 2018.
Current guidelines recommend the measurement of arterial stiffness in terms of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) as an important cardio-vascular risk marker. Both aortic PWV and the aortic augmentation index (AIxao) can be measured using different techniques, e.g., the Arteriograph and SphygmoCor. A new version of the software for the Arteriograph (v. 3.0.0.1, TensioMed, Budapest, Hungary; Arteriograph II) is now available. We wanted to determine whether this improved software differs from the previous version (Arteriograph v. 1.9.9.12; Arteriograph I). We compared the estimated aortic PWV (ePWVao) and AIxao measured with both versions of Arteriograph software and analysed the agreement of these values with those measured by SphygmoCor (v. 7.01, AtCor Medical, Sydney, Australia).
Eighty-seven subjects without known cardio-vascular disease (23 men and 64 women) aged 54.2 ± 8.7 years (mean ± standard deviation; range 33-68 years) were included in the study. Estimated PWVao and AIxao were measured by both Arteriograph and SphygmoCor. We compared Arteriograph I and Arteriograph II with each other and with SphygmoCor.
Estimated PWVao measured by Arteriograph II was lower than that measured by Arteriograph I, while the AIxao was higher. Divergence in ePWVao values was especially noted above 9 m/s. Estimated PWVao measured by Arteriograph II (7.2 m/s, 6.6-8.0 [median, 25th-75th percentile]) did not differ from that measured by SphygmoCor (7.1 m/s, 6.7-7.9 [median, 25th-75th percentile]). However, the AIao measured by Arteriograph II was significantly higher (P < 0.001).
Regularly upgraded software versions resulting from continuous technical development are needed for quality improvement of methods. However, the changes in software, even if the basic patented operational algorithm has not changed, may influence the measured values as shown in the present study. Therefore, attention should be paid to the software version of the method used when comparing arterial stiffness results in clinical settings or when performing scientific studies.
目前的指南建议使用主动脉脉搏波速度(PWV)来衡量动脉僵硬度,作为重要的心血管风险标志物。主动脉 PWV 和主动脉增强指数(AIxao)都可以使用不同的技术进行测量,例如 Arteriograph 和 SphygmoCor。现在,Arteriograph 的软件新版本(v.3.0.0.1,TensioMed,布达佩斯,匈牙利;Arteriograph II)已经推出。我们想确定这个改进的软件是否与旧版本(Arteriograph v.1.9.9.12;Arteriograph I)有所不同。我们比较了两种 Arteriograph 软件版本测量的估计主动脉 PWV(ePWVao)和 AIxao,并分析了这些值与 SphygmoCor(v.7.01,AtCor Medical,悉尼,澳大利亚)测量值的一致性。
这项研究纳入了 87 名无已知心血管疾病的受试者(23 名男性和 64 名女性),年龄 54.2±8.7 岁(平均值±标准差;范围 33-68 岁)。通过 Arteriograph 和 SphygmoCor 测量了估计的 PWVao 和 AIxao。我们比较了 Arteriograph I 和 Arteriograph II 之间以及它们与 SphygmoCor 之间的差异。
Arteriograph II 测量的 ePWVao 低于 Arteriograph I,而 AIxao 则较高。在超过 9m/s 时,ePWVao 值的差异尤其明显。Arteriograph II 测量的 ePWVao(7.2m/s,6.6-8.0[中位数,25%-75%])与 SphygmoCor 测量的 ePWVao 没有差异(7.1m/s,6.7-7.9[中位数,25%-75%])。然而,Arteriograph II 测量的 AIao 明显较高(P<0.001)。
为了提高方法的质量,需要定期更新软件版本,以满足不断的技术发展。然而,即使基本的专利操作算法没有改变,软件的变化也可能会影响测量值,正如本研究所示。因此,在临床环境中比较动脉僵硬度结果或进行科学研究时,应注意所使用的方法的软件版本。