These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Importance of software version for measurement of arterial stiffness: Arteriograph as an example.
    Author: Ring M, Eriksson MJ, Nyberg G, Caidahl K.
    Journal: PLoS One; 2018; 13(5):e0197019. PubMed ID: 29782517.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]