Abstract P1158: Agreement of Non-Invasive Devices that Measure Pulse Wave Velocity: VaSera vs VICORDER

Abstract

Background: Adequately assessing subclinical cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is crucial to mitigate CVD globally. A functional and structural measure of subclinical CVD risk, arterial stiffness is commonly measured as pulse wave velocity (PWV). However, PWV is typically estimated using non-invasive devices that use different techniques and body segments for measurement, leading to concerns when comparing PWV from different devices. Two PWV measures that estimate central arterial stiffness include a heart-to-thigh PWV (htPWV) and carotid-femoral PWV (cfPWV). It is essential to determine the agreement between different devices, particularly those used in large population-based cohorts, because these cohort studies are key to understanding subclinical CVD risk factors. Methods: We compared PWV measurements between the VaSera (htPWV) and VICORDER (cfPWV) devices in generally healthy adults (18-84 years) during two separate visits. We recruited 60 participants, of which 58 had PWV data for both devices. At each visit, three measurements were taken with the VaSera at a supine posture and three at 25 degrees for the VICORDER. The closest two observations were averaged for each device, and average observations from both visits were used for analysis. Agreement was assessed via the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) from a two-level mixed effects model adjusted for visit, side, and device, and Bland-Altman plots. Results: The ICC between the VaSera and VICORDER was 0.83 [95% confidence interval: 0.76, 0.89]. On average, VaSera values were 2.27 [-4.17, -0.36] m/s lower than VICORDER values. Conclusion: There was good agreement between measures of PWV on the VaSera and VICORDER devices. However, VaSera measurements were consistently lower than VICORDER values. The good agreement between devices suggests that each devices is accurately classifying high vs. low arterial stiffness, but the large differences in values between devices suggests PWV measured by the devices would not be interchangeable/comparable.