Comparaison et reproductibilité de trois méthodes de mesure de rigidité artérielle (impédancemétrique, échographique, tonométrique, chez des sujets sains)

Background: Arterial stiffness is an important pathophysiological determinant in the occurrence of cardiovascular diseases. The current gold standard for its assessment is the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) by tonometric method. It could be interesting to develop newer, easier and less expensive methods. Objectives: The main objective of our study was to compare the impedance wave velocity (IWV) measurement (bioimpedance analysis) with cfPWV values. Secondary aims were to compare the pulse wave velocity by Doppler (edPWV) measurement (by a new convenient method) with cfPWV values, and to assess their respective reproducibility. Methods: Twenty healthy volunteer subjects (10 men and 10 women, average age 30.3+-8.6 years) were studied: cfPWV with SphygmoCor® tonometer, IWV with an impedancemetric prototype (Emka® Society) and edPWV with an echocardiograph (General Electrics®). Measurements were repeated 48 hours later for each subject. Results: IWV and cfPWV are statistically comparable in our study (Pearson correlation coefficient r 0.431, p = 0.06). EdPWV and cfPWV are statistically comparable (r = 0.570, p = 0.009). IWV measurement appears reproducible (coefficient of variation of reproducibility (CVR) 10.3%, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.78), as well as edPWV (CVR = 12%, ICC = 0,80), and cfPWV measurement in case of exclusion of one subject from the analysis (CVR = 13,6% ; ICC = 0,64). Conclusion: Arterial stiffness assessment by IWV method is attractive and reproducible, but requires some adjustments to be comparable with the reference method. edPWV method appears valid in our healthy subjects' population, and easy to be realized during the cardiologist's ultrasound examination.POITIERS-BU Médecine pharmacie (861942103) / SudocSudocFranceF