scholarly journals A New Approach to Validate the Use of Brachial Blood Pressure to Assess Non-Invasive Aortic Pressure in Human Beings

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eng Franco Pessana ◽  
Sánchez Ramiro ◽  
Lev Gustavo ◽  
Mirada Micaela ◽  
Mendiz Oscar ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-174
Author(s):  
Ramiro Sánchez ◽  
Franco Pessana ◽  
Gabriel Lev ◽  
Micaela Mirada ◽  
Oscar Mendiz ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey C. CLOUD ◽  
Chakravarthi RAJKUMAR ◽  
Jaspal KOONER ◽  
Jonathan COOKE ◽  
Christopher J. BULPITT

Central arterial pressure, measured close to the heart, may be of more patho-physiological importance than conventional non-invasive cuff blood pressure. The technique of applanation tonometry using SphygmoCor® has been proposed as a non-invasive method of estimating central pressure. This relies on mathematically derived generalized transfer functions, which have been previously validated using invasive peripheral pressure measurements. We compared simultaneous estimates of central aortic pressure using this technique with those measured directly during the routine diagnostic cardiac catheterization of 30 subjects (age range 27–84 years), half of whom were aged 65 years or more. This was done by applanating the left radial artery and recording the non-invasive brachial cuff blood pressure to generate a central aortic pressure estimate, using the SphygmoCor® radial transfer function. The comparative results were analysed using Bland—Altman plots of mean difference. SphygmoCor®, on average, underestimated systolic central arterial pressure by 13.3 mmHg and overestimated diastolic pressure by 11.5 mmHg. The results were similar in patients aged under and above 65 years. Furthermore, non-invasively measured brachial pressures were seen to give an overall closer estimate of the central arterial pressure than the SphygmoCor® system. The transfer function has been validated from invasively measured arterial pressures and the current use by the system of non-invasive measures may explain the discrepancies. However, age, drugs and arterial disease would also be expected to play a role.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Chemla ◽  
Sandrine Millasseau ◽  
Olfa Hamzaoui ◽  
Jean-Louis Teboul ◽  
Xavier Monnet ◽  
...  

Objective: The non-invasive estimation of central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) is increasingly performed using new devices based on various pulse acquisition techniques and mathematical analyses. These devices are most often calibrated assuming that mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP are essentially unchanged when pressure wave travels from aorta to peripheral artery, an assumption which is evidence-based. We tested a new empirical formula for the direct central blood pressure estimation of cSBP using MBP and DBP only (DCBP = MBP2/DBP).Methods and Results: First, we performed a post-hoc analysis of our prospective invasive high-fidelity aortic pressure database (n = 139, age 49 ± 12 years, 78% men). The cSBP was 146.0 ± 31.1 mmHg. The error between aortic DCBP and cSBP was −0.9 ± 7.4 mmHg, and there was no bias across the cSBP range (82.5–204.0 mmHg). Second, we analyzed 64 patients from two studies of the literature in whom invasive high-fidelity pressures were simultaneously obtained in the aorta and brachial artery. The weighed mean error between brachial DCBP and cSBP was 1.1 mmHg. Finally, 30 intensive care unit patients equipped with fluid-filled catheter in the radial artery were prospectively studied. The cSBP (115.7 ± 18.2 mmHg) was estimated by carotid tonometry. The error between radial DCBP and cSBP was −0.4 ± 5.8 mmHg, and there was no bias across the range.Conclusion: Our study shows that cSBP could be reliably estimated from MBP and DBP only, provided BP measurement errors are minimized. DCBP may have implications for assessing cardiovascular risk associated with cSBP on large BP databases, a point that deserves further studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document