Cited by 164Cardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

Validation of a device to measure arterial pulse wave velocity by a photoplethysmographic method

Open access
Loukogeorgakis, Stavros, Dawson, Rex, Phillips, Nirree, Martyn, Christopher N, Greenwald, Stephen E·2002·Physiological Measurement

Abstract

We aimed to validate a new method for measuring arterial pulsewave transit time and pulsewave velocity (a measure of arterial elasticity), based on the principle of photoplethysmography (PPG), and to compare transcutaneous values with those obtained by intra-arterial measurements. Three validation experiments are described. (a) PPG pulse wave delay times (defined as the time interval between the ECG R wave and the foot of the arterial pulse wave measured at the wrist or ankle) were compared to values obtained simultaneously from an established methodology (Doppler ultrasound). (b) Aortic pulsewave delay times in 17 subjects obtained non-invasively by the PPG method were compared with those obtained from the intra-arterial pressure wave. (c) Repeatability measurements of PWV on the same subjects were carried out over two timescales (minutes and hours) in the arm, the leg and the trunk. The Doppler and PPG delay times correlated well, as did intra-arterial and transcutaneous values. Repeatability at short timescales was good (coefficients of variation (CV) < 6% for all measurement sites) and, at the longer timescale, was satisfactory (CVs in the aorta, the arm and leg were 6.3, 13.1 and 16.0, respectively). The PWV values agreed well with others in the literature. We conclude that the PPG technique provides a complement to existing methods for the non-invasive measurement of arterial compliance. Its simplicity and ease of use make it suitable for large-scale epidemiological studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0967-3334/23/3/309

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loukogeorgakis, S., Dawson, R., Phillips, N., Martyn, C. N., & Greenwald, S. E.
Affiliations
  • St Bartholomew's Hospital (GB)
  • Southampton General Hospital (GB)
Venue
Physiological Measurement
Published
2002-07-15
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
581-596
ISSN
0967-3334 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2006542548
Cited by
164
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physiological Measurement (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Non-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
pulse wave velocity, photoplethysmography, arterial compliance, pulse transit time, aortic pulse wave, Doppler ultrasound comparison, repeatability
MeSH terms
Ankle, Catheterization, Peripheral, Circadian Rhythm, Compliance, Femoral Artery, Heart Rate, Humans, Pulsatile Flow, Pulse, Wrist, Reproducibility of Results, Photoplethysmography, Ultrasonography, Doppler

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review