Table 1 The strengths, limitations, and reference values of cfPWV and baPWV

Strength

Regarded as the gold standard among non-invasive methods for measuring arterial stiffness

Simpler and quicker to measure, making it suitable for mass screening

Supported by extensive clinical data and is the most validated measure

Offers insights into both central and peripheral arterial stiffness, providing a comprehensive assessment

Provides an assessment of central aortic stiffness

The equipment for baPWV is more affordable and readily available in many clinical settings

Minimally influenced by lower limb arterial disease

More reproducible with reduced variability due to its straightforward operator technique

Limitation

Can be uncomfortable for subjects during measurement

Reflects a mixed assessment of both central and peripheral arterial stiffness

Demands specialized training and is more time-consuming to perform

Susceptible to alterations from conditions affecting peripheral arteries, particularly lower limb diseases

Less suitable for mass screening

May not be universally recognized or preferred for some research or clinical contexts

Does not provide insights into peripheral arterial stiffness

Lacks standardized normal values that are universally accepted

Might overestimate values in individuals with short stature

Predominantly utilized in Asian countries

Reference value

Abnormal ≥ 10 m/s

Normal < 14 m/s

Borderline ≥ 14 and < 18 m/s

Abnormal ≥ 18 m/s