Table 1.

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

	cfPWV	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

cfPWV carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, baPWV brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity