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

Clicks: 306
ID: 23867
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #10 of 14 articles by views in journal of clinical hypertension (greenwich, conn)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Wave reflection at central arteries consists of a major component of left ventricular afterload. Central augmentation index (AIx) is the most widely used surrogate of wave reflection. Recent technological developments now provide the ability to obtain, non-invasively, aortic, or carotid pressure waves and measure AIx based on various algorithms of pulse wave analysis. The aim of this study was to compare AIx measurements performed by the Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil-O-Graph apparatuses. Recordings by each device in randomized order were performed with 5-minute interval at 211 individuals (age 55.1 ± 14.1 years, 67.8% males) who underwent diagnostic cardiovascular assessment. All measurements were obtained at the supine position, and AIx was calculated using the formula AIx = 100 × (Augmentation pressure)/(Pulse Pressure). Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Mean difference (bias) ± one standard deviation of difference (with limits of agreement) of AIx between different devices was as follows: (a) Mobil-O-Graph vs Complior: -2.1 ± 14.8% (-31.1% to 26.9%), (b) Arteriograph vs Complior: 12.9 ± 14.6% (-15.7% to 41.5%), and (c) Mobil-O-Graph vs Arteriograph: -10.8 ± 16.9% (-43.9% to 22.3%). The three examined devices exerted significant differences in central AIx estimation which makes the three devices non-interchangeable for wave reflection assessment. However, the Mobil-O-Graph device showed the highest agreement (lowest bias) with the Complior system as regards to the AIx measurement.
Reference Key
papaioannou2019measurementjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Papaioannou, Theodore G;Thymis, John;Benas, Dimitrios;Triantafyllidi, Helen;Kostelli, Gavriela;Pavlidis, George;Kousathana, Fotini;Katogiannis, Kostantinos;Vlastos, Dimitrios;Lambadiari, Vaia;Papadavid, Evangelia;Parissis, John;Tousoulis, Dimitrios;Ikonomidis, Ignatios;
Journal journal of clinical hypertension (greenwich, conn)
Year 2019
DOI
10.1111/jch.13654
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.