AIMS: Continuous noninvasive blood pressure measurement by photoplethysmography has been regularly used in the experimental paradigm of angiotensin challenges, applied to the phase I clinical testing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists. This work aims to evaluate the performance of this measurement method, in terms of reliability, reproducibility and dependence on technical settings. METHODS: Data have been gathered from 13 clinical studies on antihypertensive drugs, using the Finapres device for measuring the response to exogenous angiotensin challenges. The agreement between simultaneous recordings at different fingers and the influence of the reading method are assessed. A literature review addresses the question of the concordance between results obtained noninvasively and through arterial cannulation. RESULTS: The relative precision of blood pressure monitoring by photoplethysmography allows reproducible determination of angiotensin-induced blood pressure peaks (agreement limits for systolic and diastolic peaks: 12 and 6 mmHg respectively). The reading method influences the results to a similar extent. As compared with blood pressure measured intra-arterially, the difference is usually within limits of clinical acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of phase I studies using the angiotensin challenges methodology, the reliability and reproducibility of noninvasive blood pressure measurement appear satisfactory, despite the technical limitations of this method. The impact of selected changes in the settings and reading methods is limited.
AIMS: Continuous noninvasive blood pressure measurement by photoplethysmography has been regularly used in the experimental paradigm of angiotensin challenges, applied to the phase I clinical testing of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists. This work aims to evaluate the performance of this measurement method, in terms of reliability, reproducibility and dependence on technical settings. METHODS: Data have been gathered from 13 clinical studies on antihypertensive drugs, using the Finapres device for measuring the response to exogenous angiotensin challenges. The agreement between simultaneous recordings at different fingers and the influence of the reading method are assessed. A literature review addresses the question of the concordance between results obtained noninvasively and through arterial cannulation. RESULTS: The relative precision of blood pressure monitoring by photoplethysmography allows reproducible determination of angiotensin-induced blood pressure peaks (agreement limits for systolic and diastolic peaks: 12 and 6 mmHg respectively). The reading method influences the results to a similar extent. As compared with blood pressure measured intra-arterially, the difference is usually within limits of clinical acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of phase I studies using the angiotensin challenges methodology, the reliability and reproducibility of noninvasive blood pressure measurement appear satisfactory, despite the technical limitations of this method. The impact of selected changes in the settings and reading methods is limited.
Authors: G A Rongen; W J Bos; J W Lenders; G A van Montfrans; H J van Lier; J van Goudoever; K H Wesseling; T Thien Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: G P Molhoek; K H Wesseling; J J Settels; E van Vollenhoven; H W Weeda; B de Wit; A C Arntzenius Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 1984 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 17.165
Authors: Anatoly S Karavaev; Anatoly S Borovik; Ekaterina I Borovkova; Eugeniya A Orlova; Margarita A Simonyan; Vladimir I Ponomarenko; Viktoriia V Skazkina; Vladimir I Gridnev; Boris P Bezruchko; Mikhail D Prokhorov; Anton R Kiselev Journal: Biophys J Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: Peter H Charlton; Birutė Paliakaitė; Kristjan Pilt; Martin Bachler; Serena Zanelli; Dániel Kulin; John Allen; Magid Hallab; Elisabetta Bianchini; Christopher C Mayer; Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios; Verena Dittrich; Bernhard Hametner; Dave Veerasingam; Dejan Žikić; Vaidotas Marozas Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.733