Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AI) are independent predictors of cardiovascular health. However, the comparability of multiple oscillometric modalities currently available for their assessment was not studied in detail. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between indices of arterial stiffness assessed by diastolic and suprasystolic oscillometry. In total, 56 volunteers from the general population (23 males; median age 70 years [interquartile range: 65–72 years]) were recruited into observational feasibility study to evaluate the carotid-femoral/aortic PWV (cf/aoPWV), brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV), and AI assessed by 2 devices: Vicorder (VI) applying diastolic, right-sided oscillometry for the determination of all 3 indices, and Vascular explorer (VE) implementing single-point, suprasystolic brachial oscillometry (SSBO) pulse wave analysis for the assessment of cfPWV and AI. Within- and between-device correlations of measured parameters were analyzed. Furthermore, agreement of repeated measurements, intra- and inter-observer concordances were determined and compared for both devices. In VI, both baPWVand cfPWVinter-correlatedwell and showed good level of agreement with bilateral baPWVmeasured byVE (baPWV[VI]– baPWV[VE]R: overall concordance correlation coefficient [OCCC]¼0.484, mean difference¼1.94 m/s; cfPWV[VI]–baPWV[- VE]R: OCCC¼0.493, mean difference¼1.0m/s). In contrast, SSBO derived aortic PWA (cf/aoPWA[VE]) displayed only weak correlation with cfPWV(VI) (r¼0.196; P¼0.04) and ipsilateral baPWV (cf/ aoPWV[VE]R–baPWV[VE]R: r¼0.166; P¼0.08). cf/aoPWA(VE) correlated strongly with AI(VE) (right-sided: r¼0.725, P<0.001). AI exhibited marginal between-device agreement (right-sided: OCCC¼ 0.298, mean difference: 6.12%). All considered parameters showed good-to-excellent repeatability giving OCCC > 0.9 for 2-point-PWV modes and right-sided AI(VE). Intra- and inter-observer concordances were similarly high except for AI yielding a trend toward better reproducibility in VE (interobserver–OCCC[VI] vs [VE]¼0.774 vs 0.844; intraobserver OCCC[VI] vs [VE]¼0.613 vs 0.769). Both diastolic oscillometry-derived PWV modes, and AI measured either with VI or VE, are comparable and reliable alternatives for the assessment of arterial stiffness. Aortic PWV assessed by SSBO in VE is not related to the corresponding indices determined by traditional diastolic oscillometry.

This thesis deals with the methodology of use of whole-body impedance cardiography for evaluation of pulse wave velocity. The first three chapters explain selected hemodynamic properties of the arterial system related to the issue of pulse wave propagation. At the same time the ordinary methods for estimation, its disadvantages and merits has been summarized. Points at issue of whole-body impedance evaluation methodology for pulse wave velocity are researched in second part of this thesis. In order that analysis the procedure for correct methodology has been determined. Particularly determination of reference proximal point for calculation of transit time towards aortic valve, and design and accuracy of transit distance measurement were discussed. Based on the obtained data, a calculation of representative pulse wave velocity to eight limb locations was performed.

Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AI) are independent predictors of cardiovascular health. However, the comparability of multiple oscillometric modalities currently available for their assessment was not studied in detail. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between indices of arterial stiffness assessed by diastolic and suprasystolic oscillometry. In total, 56 volunteers from the general population (23 males; median age 70 years [interquartile range: 65–72 years]) were recruited into observational feasibility study to evaluate the carotid-femoral/aortic PWV (cf/aoPWV), brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV), and AI assessed by 2 devices: Vicorder (VI) applying diastolic, right-sided oscillometry for the determination of all 3 indices, and Vascular explorer (VE) implementing single-point, suprasystolic brachial oscillometry (SSBO) pulse wave analysis for the assessment of cfPWV and AI. Within- and between-device correlations of measured parameters were analyzed. Furthermore, agreement of repeated measurements, intra- and inter-observer concordances were determined and compared for both devices. In VI, both baPWVand cfPWVinter-correlatedwell and showed good level of agreement with bilateral baPWVmeasured byVE (baPWV[VI]– baPWV[VE]R: overall concordance correlation coefficient [OCCC]¼0.484, mean difference¼1.94 m/s; cfPWV[VI]–baPWV[- VE]R: OCCC¼0.493, mean difference¼1.0m/s). In contrast, SSBO derived aortic PWA (cf/aoPWA[VE]) displayed only weak correlation with cfPWV(VI) (r¼0.196; P¼0.04) and ipsilateral baPWV (cf/ aoPWV[VE]R–baPWV[VE]R: r¼0.166; P¼0.08). cf/aoPWA(VE) correlated strongly with AI(VE) (right-sided: r¼0.725, P<0.001). AI exhibited marginal between-device agreement (right-sided: OCCC¼ 0.298, mean difference: 6.12%). All considered parameters showed good-to-excellent repeatability giving OCCC > 0.9 for 2-point-PWV modes and right-sided AI(VE). Intra- and inter-observer concordances were similarly high except for AI yielding a trend toward better reproducibility in VE (interobserver–OCCC[VI] vs [VE]¼0.774 vs 0.844; intraobserver OCCC[VI] vs [VE]¼0.613 vs 0.769). Both diastolic oscillometry-derived PWV modes, and AI measured either with VI or VE, are comparable and reliable alternatives for the assessment of arterial stiffness. Aortic PWV assessed by SSBO in VE is not related to the corresponding indices determined by traditional diastolic oscillometry.