Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison between cuff-based and invasive systolic blood pressure amplification.
Bui, Tan V; Picone, Dean S; Schultz, Martin G; Armstrong, Matthew K; Peng, Xiaoqing; Black, J Andrew; Dwyer, Nathan; Roberts-Thomson, Philip; Adams, Heath; Hughes, Alun D; Sharman, James E.
Affiliation
  • Bui TV; Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
  • Picone DS; Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
  • Schultz MG; Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
  • Armstrong MK; Department of Health and Human Physiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
  • Peng X; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
  • Black JA; Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
  • Dwyer N; Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.
  • Roberts-Thomson P; Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
  • Adams H; Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.
  • Hughes AD; Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
  • Sharman JE; Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Australia.
J Hypertens ; 40(10): 2037-2044, 2022 10 01.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36052526
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Accurate measurement of central blood pressure (BP) using upper arm cuff-based methods is associated with several factors, including determining the level of systolic BP (SBP) amplification. This study aimed to determine the agreement between cuff-based and invasively measured SBP amplification.

METHODS:

Patients undergoing coronary angiography had invasive SBP amplification (brachial SBP - central SBP) measured simultaneously with cuff-based SBP amplification using a commercially available central BP device (device 1 Sphygmocor Xcel; n = 171, 70% men, 60 ±â€Š10 years) and a now superseded model of a central BP device (device 2 Uscom BP+; n = 52, 83% men, 62 ±â€Š10 years).

RESULTS:

Mean difference (±2SD, limits of agreement) between cuff-based and invasive SBP amplification was 4 mmHg (-12, +20 mmHg, P < 0.001) for device 1 and -2 mmHg (-14, +10 mmHg, P = 0.10) for device 2. Both devices systematically overestimated SBP amplification at lower levels and underestimated at higher levels of invasive SBP amplification, but with stronger bias for device 1 (r = -0.68 vs. r = -0.52; Z = 2.72; P = 0.008). Concordance of cuff-based and invasive SBP amplification across quartiles of invasive SBP amplification was low, particularly in the lowest and highest quartiles. The root mean square errors from regression between cuff-based central SBP and brachial SBP were significantly lower (indicating less variability) than from invasive regression models (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

Irrespective of the difference from invasive measurements, cuff-based estimates of SBP amplification showed evidence of proportional systematic bias and had less individual variability. These observations could provide insights on how to improve the performance of cuff-based central BP.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Blood Pressure Determination / Arterial Pressure Type of study: Prognostic_studies Limits: Female / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: J Hypertens Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Blood Pressure Determination / Arterial Pressure Type of study: Prognostic_studies Limits: Female / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: J Hypertens Year: 2022 Document type: Article Affiliation country: