Background: Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) appears to be the “gold-standard” for evaluation of vascular changes in patients with arterial hypertension (HT). The examination of arterial stiffness in this group has a chance to become a routine procedure. This indicates how important will be the choice of the optimal method for PWV measurement.

The aim of this study was to compare aortic PWV obtained in patients with primary HT using three different types of devices: Complior^®, SphygmoCor^® and Arteriograph.

Method: In 64 pts with mild or moderate primary HT (age 54 ± 13.6 yrs), 39 males and 25 females we measured PWV using the three aforementioned devices at the same clinical visit.

Results: PWV obtained with Complior^® (10.2 ± 2.3 m/s), SphygmoCor^® (8.1 ± 1.2 m/s) and Arteriograph (8.6 ± 1.8 m/s) were significantly different (ANOVA, p<0.001), due to higher Complior-PWV values than those obtained with the remaining devices. A comparison of such PWV determinants as traveled distance and transit time revealed a significant difference in distances between the methods, but no differences in transit times. The Bland-Altman analysis for each pair of devices indicated that PWV values were measured with similar accuracy when considering the mean of differences.

Conclusions: The methodological differences in traveled distance, but not in transit time measurement are responsible for higher pulse wave velocity obtained with the Complior than SphygmoCor and Arteriograph devices. Taking into account this differences, all devices are accurate and valuable for PWV measurement.