A COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN MOBIL-O-GRAPH AND SPHYGMOCOR DEVICES IN ASSESSING AORTIC SYSTOLIC PRESSURE AND PULSE WAVE VELOCITY IN PERITONEAL DIALYSIS PATIENTS. (June 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Georgianos, P.; Vaios, V.; Pikilidou, M.; Papagianni, A.; Zebekakis, P.; Liakopoulos, V.
• Is Part Of: Journal of hypertension. Volume 36(2018)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2018-06
• Subjects: Hypertension -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132005
• DOI: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000539196.76568.7c
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-5598

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The newly-introduced Mobil-O-Graph monitor has been validated against invasive and non-invasive measurements of aortic systolic pressure (aSBP) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) in the general hypertensive population. However, the validity of Mobil-O-Graph-derived measurements among patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare oscillometric measurements of aSBP, heart-rate adjusted augmentation index (AIx75) and PWV obtained with the Mobil-O-Graph monitor (IEM, Germany) against tonometric measurements taken with the Sphygmocor device (ArtCor, Australia) in patients receiving long-term PD. Design and method: A comparison study of 27 consecutive PD patients using the Sphygmocor-derived aSBP, AIx75 and PWV as reference standard. After a 10-min rest in the supine position, we applied the Mobil-O-Graph and Sphygmocor devices in a randomized order. Brachial BP recordings taken with a conventional sphygmomanometer were used to calibrate the Sphygmocor device. Results: Measurements of aSBP, AIx75 and PWV obtained with the Mobil-O-Graph device did not differ from relevant measurements taken with Sphygmocor (120.5 ± 18.2 vs 124.4 ± 19.0 mmHg, P = 0.438 for aoSBP, 27.0 ± 12.4 vs 24.5 ± 10.6%, P = 0.428 for AIx75 and 9.5 ± 2.1 vs 10.1 ± 3.1 m/sec, P = 0.397 for PWV). The slight difference in estimation of aSBP is possibly explained by the numerically higher brachial SBP values used for the calibration of Sphygmocor (131.0 ± 20.6 vs 134.5 ± 19.7 mmHg, P = 0.525). Mobil-O-Graph-derived parameters were strongly and significantly correlated with paired measurements taken with Sphygmocor (r = 0.889, P < 0.001 for aSBP, r = 0.816, P < 0.001 for AIx75 and r = 0.794, P < 0.001 for PWV). Bland-Altman plots showed no evidence of asymmetry and wide range of agreement between the two devices. Conclusions: This study suggests that oscillometric measurements of aSBP, AIx75 and PWV taken under static conditions with the Mobil-O-Graph monitor are closely related to tonometric measurements taken with the widely applied Sphygmocor device among patients on PD. The use of the Mobil-O-Graph monitor may facilitate the accurate determination of arterial stiffness indexes under ambulatory conditions in this population.