Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is a marker of arterial stiffness with major prognostic value. We compared Arteriograph and Complior devices with the Mobil-O-Graph for assessment of PWV and central systolic blood pressure (cSBP). We studied 316 consecutive subjects (age: 55 ± 14 years). For each individual, we measured PWV and cSBP with Arteriograph, Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and compared the readings. Differences in values among three devices were calculated for each measurement. We used Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variation (CV). Bland-Altman analysis indicated a mean difference for PWV: i.0.5 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.4) between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph, ii.0.6 m/s (limits of agreement -1.4-2.6) between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph. cSBP mean difference was 3.8 mmHg between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -12.5-20.1) and 9.2 mmHg between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph (limits of agreement -7.6-26). ICC for PWV was 0.86 between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 0.87 between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph and for cSBP 0.92 and 0.91 respectively. CV for PWV was 9.5% between Arteriograph and Mobil-O-Graph, 8.8% between Complior and Mobil-O-Graph. Respective values for cSBP were 6.8% and 5.1%. Our study shows acceptable agreement among the three devices regarding pulse wave analysis markers though Mobil-O-Graph appears to underestimate the values of these markers. Further studies are needed to explore the agreement between the 3 devices in various clinical settings and patient populations.

Background and Objectives: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) are cardioprotective drugs. We investigated their effects on left atrial function, a major determinant of cardiac diastolic dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus. We also explored the association of changes in arterial stiffness with those of the LA strain after treatment. Materials and Methods: A total of 200 patients (59.5 ± 9.1 year old, 151 male) with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with metformin were randomized to insulin (n = 50 served as controls), liraglutide (n = 50), empagliflozin (n = 50) or their combination (liraglutide + empagliflozin) (n = 50). We measured at baseline and 6 months post-treatment: (a) left atrial and global left ventricular longitudinal strain by speckle tracking echocardiography; (b) pulse wave velocity (PWV) and central systolic blood pressure. Results: At baseline, there was a correlation of the LA reservoir strain with PWV (r = −0.209, p = 0.008), central SBP (r = −0.151, p = 0.030), EF (r = 0.214, p = 0.004) and GLS (r = −0.279, p = 0.009). The LA reservoir change 6 months post-treatment was correlated with the PWV change in all groups (r = −0.242, p = 0.028). The LA reservoir change 6 months post-treatment was correlated with the GLS change in all groups (r = −0.322, p = 0.004). Six months after intervention, patients treated with liraglutide, empagliflozin and their combination improved the left atrial reservoir strain (GLP1RA 30.7 ± 9.3 vs. 33.9 ± 9.7%, p = 0.011, SGLT2i 30 ± 8.3 vs. 32.3 ± 7.3%, p = 0.04, GLP1&SGLT2i 29.1 ± 8.7 vs. 31.3 ± 8.2, p = 0.007) compared to those treated with insulin (33 ± 8.3% vs. 32.8 ± 7.4, p = 0.829). Also, patients treated with liraglutide and the combination liraglutide and empagliflozin had improved left atrial conduction strain (p < 0.05). Empagliflozin or the combination liraglutide and empagliflozin showed a greater decrease of PWV and central and brachial systolic blood pressure than insulin or GLP-1RA. (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Impaired aortic elastic properties are associated with a decreased LA strain in type 2 diabetics. Treatment with liraglutide, empagliflozin and their combination for 6 months showed a greater improvement of left atrial function compared to insulin treatment in parallel with the improvement of arterial and myocardial functions.

Wave reflection at central arteries consists of a major component of left ventricular afterload. Central augmentation index (AIx) is the most widely used surrogate of wave reflection. Recent technological developments now provide the ability to obtain, non‐invasively, aortic, or carotid pressure waves and measure AIx based on various algorithms of pulse wave analysis. The aim of this study was to compare AIx measurements performed by the Arteriograph, Complior, and Mobil‐O‐Graph apparatuses. Recordings by each device in randomized order were performed with 5‐minute interval at 211 individuals (age 55.1 ± 14.1 years, 67.8% males) who underwent diagnostic cardiovascular assessment. All measurements were obtained at the supine position, and AIx was calculated using the formula AIx = 100 × (Augmentation pressure)/(Pulse Pressure). Bland‐Altman analysis was performed. Mean difference (bias) ± one standard deviation of difference (with limits of agreement) of AIx between different devices was as follows: (a) Mobil‐O‐Graph vs Complior: −2.1 ± 14.8% (−31.1% to 26.9%), (b) Arteriograph vs Complior: 12.9 ± 14.6% (−15.7% to 41.5%), and (c) Mobil‐O‐Graph vs Arteriograph: −10.8 ± 16.9% (−43.9% to 22.3%). The three examined devices exerted significant differences in central AIx estimation which makes the three devices non‐interchangeable for wave reflection assessment. However, the Mobil‐O‐Graph device showed the highest agreement (lowest bias) with the Complior system as regards to the AIx measurement.