RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A novel method for estimating central systolic aortic pressure (cSAP) has emerged, relying solely on the peripheral mean (MBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures. We aimed to assess the accuracy of this Direct Central Blood Pressure estimation using cuff alone (DCBPcuff = MBP2/DBP) in comparison to the use of a generalized transfer function to derive cSAP from radial tonometry (cSAPtono). METHODS: This retrospective analysis involved the International Database of Central Arterial Properties for Risk Stratification (IDCARS) data (Aparicio et al., Am J Hypertens 2022). The dataset encompassed 10,930 subjects from 13 longitudinal cohort studies worldwide (54.8% women; median age 46.0 years; office hypertension: 40.1%; treated: 61.0%), documenting cSAPtono via SphygmoCor calibrated against brachial systolic BP (SBP) and DBP. Our analysis focused on aggregate group data from 12/13 studies (89% patients) where a full BP dataset was available. A 35% form factor was used to estimate MBP = (DBP + (0.35 × (SBP-DBP)), from which DCBPcuff was derived. The predefined acceptable error for cSAPtono estimation was set at ≤ 5 mm Hg. RESULTS: The cSAPtono values ranged from 103.8-127.0 mm Hg (n = 12). The error between DCBPcuff and cSAPtono was 0.2 ±â€…1.4 mm Hg, with no influence of the mean. Errors ranged from -1.8 to 2.9 mm Hg across studies. No significant difference in errors was observed between BP measurements obtained via oscillometry (n = 9) vs. auscultation (n = 3) (P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Using published aggregate group data and a 35% form factor, DCBPcuff demonstrated remarkable accuracy in estimating cSAPtono, regardless of the BP measurement technique. However, given that individual BP values were unavailable, further documentation is required to establish DCBPcuff's precision.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

GOAL: This paper proposes and validates a completely adaptive transfer function (CATF) based on an autoregressive exogenous (ARX) model which adjusts the gain and phase of a generalized transfer function (GTF) simultaneously to estimate the aortic pressure waveform from a brachial pressure waveform. METHODS: Invasive aortic and brachial pressure waveforms were recorded from 34 subjects for the validation of the proposed method. Individual transfer functions (ITFs) were trained based on the pressure waveforms using an ARX model. The GTF was derived by averaging the ITFs. CATF was then obtained by adjusting both the gain and phase of the GTF using regression formulas calculated from the ITFs and brachial hemodynamic parameters. Meanwhile the quantitative contributions of the adaption of gain and phase of the GTF were investigated respectively. The root-mean-square-error of the total waveform and absolute errors of common hemodynamic indices including systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively), pulse pressure (PP) and augmentation index were used to evaluate the performance of the proposed method in the data divided into low, middle and high PP amplification groups. RESULTS: The CATF achieved lower errors for DBP and PP in the low PP amplification group (1.79 versus 2.10 mmHg and 5.08 versus 6.23 mmHg, respectively, both P < 0.05) and PP in the middle amplification group (1.43 versus 1.92 mmHg, P < 0.05) compared with the GTF. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed method provides a step towards the development of an improved and clinically useful non-invasive approach for estimating the aortic pressure waveform from a peripheral pressure waveform.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Cardiovascular disease is one of the important factors that threaten the health of residents, ranking the first among various causes of death, so the monitoring and diagnosis of human cardiovascular health is particularly important. Compared with traditional brachial artery pressure, central arterial pressure (CAP) has a higher correlation with the occurrence of many cardiovascular events. The measurement of CAP can more accurately reflect the real situation of human blood pressure, and provide an important basis for diagnosis and disease prevention. Therefore, the realization of high-precision, high-generalization ability and low-cost non-invasive measurement of CAP has always been the research focus in this field. This article combines the relevant literature in China and abroad to summarize the current status of CPA measurement, introduces related research progress from two aspects, namely parameter measurement and waveform measurement, and discusses the characteristics of the existing methods and the future development.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Central blood pressure (BP) assessed noninvasively considerably underestimates true invasively measured aortic BP in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. The difference between the estimated and the true aortic BP increases with decreasing estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR). The present study investigated whether aortic calcification affects noninvasive estimates of central BP. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with CKD stage 4-5 undergoing coronary angiography and an aortic computed tomography scan were included (63% males, age [mean ± SD ] 53 ± 11 years, and eGFR 9 ± 5 mL/min/1.73 m2). Invasive aortic BP was measured through the angiography catheter, while non-invasive central BP was obtained using radial artery tonometry with a SphygmoCor® device. The Agatston calcium score (CS) in the aorta was quantified on CT scans using the CS on CT scans. RESULTS: The invasive aortic systolic BP (SBP) was 152 ± 23 mm Hg, while the estimated central SBP was 133 ± 20 mm Hg. Ten patients had a CS of 0 in the aorta, while 14 patients had a CS >0 in the aorta. The estimated central SBP was lower than the invasive aortic SBP in patients with aortic calcification compared to patients without (mean difference 8 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.3-16; p = 0.04). The brachial SBP was lower than the aortic SBP in patients with aortic calcification compared to patients without (mean difference 10 mm Hg, 95% CI 2-19; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced CKD the presence of aortic calcification is associated with a higher difference between invasively measured central aortic BP and non-invasive estimates of central BP as compared to patients without calcifications.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

We aimed to evaluate the performance of a mathematical model and currently available non-invasive techniques (generalized transfer function (GTF) method and brachial pressure) in the estimation of aortic pressure. We also aimed to investigate error dependence on brachial pressure errors, aorta-to-brachial pressure changes and demographic/clinical conditions. Sixty-two patients referred for invasive hemodynamic evaluation were consecutively recruited. Simultaneously, the registration of the aortic pressure using a fluid-filled catheter, brachial pressure and radial tonometric waveform was recorded. Accordingly, the GTF device and mathematical model were set. Radial invasive pressure was recorded soon after aortic measurement. The average invasive aortic pressure was 141.3 ± 20.2/76 ± 12.2 mm Hg. The simultaneous brachial pressure was 144 ± 17.8/81.5 ± 11.7 mm Hg. The GTF-based and model-based aortic pressure estimates were 133.1 ± 17.3/82.4 ± 12 and 137 ± 21.6/72.2 ± 16.7 mm Hg, respectively. The Bland-Altman plots showed a marked tendency to pressure overestimation for increasing absolute values, with the exclusion of mathematical model diastolic estimations. The systolic pressure was increased from the aortic to radial locations (7.5 ± 19 mm Hg), while the diastolic pressure was decreased (3.8 ± 9.8 mm Hg). The brachial pressure underestimated the systolic and overestimated diastolic intra-arterial radial pressure. GTF errors were independently correlated with the variability in pulse pressure amplification and with the brachial error. Errors of the mathematical model were related to only demographic and clinical conditions. Neither a multiscale mathematical model nor a generalized transfer function device substantially outperformed the oscillometric brachial pressure in the estimation of aortic pressure. Mathematical modeling should be improved by including further patient-specific conditions, while the variability in pulse pressure amplification may hamper the performance of the GTF method in patients at the risk of coronary artery disease.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Central blood pressure (BP) can be assessed noninvasively based on radial tonometry and may potentially be a better predictor of clinical outcome than brachial BP. However, the validity of noninvasively obtained estimates has never been examined in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Here we compared invasive aortic systolic BP (SBP) with estimated central SBP obtained by radial artery tonometry and examined the influence of renal function and arterial stiffness on this relationship. We evaluated 83 patients with stage 3 to 5 CKD (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) and 41 controls without renal disease undergoing scheduled coronary angiography. BP in the ascending aorta was measured through the angiography catheter and simultaneously estimated using radial tonometry. The mean difference between estimated central and aortic SBP was -13.2 (95% confidence interval -14.9 to -11.4) mm Hg. Arterial stiffness was evaluated by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cf-PWV) and was significantly increased in CKD patients compared with (versus) control patients (mean 10.7 vs. 9.3 m/s). The difference in BP significantly increased 1.0 mm Hg for every 10 ml/min decrease in eGFR and by 1.6 mm Hg per 1 m/s increase in cfPWV. Using multivariate regression analysis including both eGFR and cfPWV, the difference between estimated central and invasive aortic SBP was significantly increased by 0.7 mm Hg. For the entire cohort brachial SBP significantly better reflected invasive SBP than estimated SBP. Thus, tonometry-based estimates of central BP progressively underestimate invasive central SBP with decreasing renal function and increasing arterial stiffness in CKD patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) can be derived by the general transfer function of the radial pressure wave, as used in the SphygmoCor device, or by regression equation from directly measured late systolic shoulder of the radial pressure wave (pSBP2), as used in the Omron HEM-9000AI device. The aim of this study was to compare the SphygmoCor estimates of cSBP with 2 estimates of cSBP provided by the Omron HEM-9000AI (cSBP, pSBP2) in a large cohort of the white population. METHODS: In 391 patients aged 52.3±13.5 years (46% men) from the Czech post-MONICA Study, cSBP was measured using the SphygmoCor and Omron HEM-9000AI devices in random order. RESULTS: Omron cSBP and pSBP2 were perfectly correlated (r = 1.0; P < 0.0001). There was a strong correlation (r = 0.97; P < 0.0001) between Omron and SphygmoCor cSBP estimates, but Omron estimate was 13.1±4.7mm Hg higher than SphygmoCor cSBP. On the other hand, Omron pSBP2 strongly correlated with SphygmoCor cSBP (r = 0.97; P < 0.0001) and was 1.7±4.2mm Hg lower than SphygmoCor cSBP. In multivariable analysis, anthropometric and cardiovascular risk factors explained only 10% of the variance of the cSBP difference between devices while explaining 52% of the systolic blood pressure amplification variance. CONCLUSIONS: Estimation of cSBP based on the late systolic shoulder of the radial wave provides a comparable accuracy with the validated general transfer function. When comparing Omron HEM-9000AI and SphygmoCor estimates of cSBP, Omron pSBP2 should be used. The difference between both devices in cSBP may be explained by differences in calibration.

Asunto(s)