BACKGROUND: Concerns persist about the validity of generalized transfer function-derived, aortic blood-pressure measurements during the administration of vasoactive agents in clinical trials. Hence, we compared this transfer-function method with another, which estimates aortic systolic pressure directly from the late systolic shoulder of the radial pressure wave, after administration of placebo, ramipril, or atenolol. METHODS: We recorded radial pressure pulse waveforms, using a commercially available system, in 30 subjects with >or=1 coronary risk factor in an acute study oframipril at 10 mg and atenolol at 100 mg. Directly recorded radial and derived aortic pressure pulse waveforms were examined individually and were ensemble-averaged, and the difference between radial and aortic pressure responses was examined. RESULTS: The late systolic shoulder response from radial waveforms was reduced by 15.8 mm Hg (SD, 12.2 mm Hg) more with ramipril than with atenolol. This was similar to a difference of 14.6 mm Hg (SD, 11.2 mm Hg) calculated for the aortic systolic pressure response using the transfer-function technique. Ramipril caused a greater reduction in the aortic systolic pressure response (22.2 mm Hg), whereas with atenolol, there was a modest decrease (7.6 mm Hg). The mean difference between aortic systolic pressures measured from direct radial waveforms and from derived aortic pressure between 3 and 5 h after dosing under all circumstances was 1.6 mm Hg (SD, 8.9 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: Central pressure derived from radial pressure waveforms using a generalized transfer function gave similar results for central pressure measured directly from radial waveforms. The hemodynamic benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, and calcium channel blocker over beta-blocker antihypertensive therapy in recent trials were confirmed by this study.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Concerns persist about the validity of generalized transfer function-derived, aortic blood-pressure measurements during the administration of vasoactive agents in clinical trials. Hence, we compared this transfer-function method with another, which estimates aortic systolic pressure directly from the late systolic shoulder of the radial pressure wave, after administration of placebo, ramipril, or atenolol. METHODS: We recorded radial pressure pulse waveforms, using a commercially available system, in 30 subjects with >or=1 coronary risk factor in an acute study of ramipril at 10 mg and atenolol at 100 mg. Directly recorded radial and derived aortic pressure pulse waveforms were examined individually and were ensemble-averaged, and the difference between radial and aortic pressure responses was examined. RESULTS: The late systolic shoulder response from radial waveforms was reduced by 15.8 mm Hg (SD, 12.2 mm Hg) more with ramipril than with atenolol. This was similar to a difference of 14.6 mm Hg (SD, 11.2 mm Hg) calculated for the aortic systolic pressure response using the transfer-function technique. Ramipril caused a greater reduction in the aortic systolic pressure response (22.2 mm Hg), whereas with atenolol, there was a modest decrease (7.6 mm Hg). The mean difference between aortic systolic pressures measured from direct radial waveforms and from derived aortic pressure between 3 and 5 h after dosing under all circumstances was 1.6 mm Hg (SD, 8.9 mm Hg). CONCLUSIONS: Central pressure derived from radial pressure waveforms using a generalized transfer function gave similar results for central pressure measured directly from radial waveforms. The hemodynamic benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, and calcium channel blocker over beta-blocker antihypertensive therapy in recent trials were confirmed by this study.
Authors: Matthew R Nelson; Jan Stepanek; Michael Cevette; Michael Covalciuc; R Todd Hurst; A Jamil Tajik Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: M H Hwang; J K Yoo; H K Kim; C L Hwang; K Mackay; O Hemstreet; W W Nichols; D D Christou Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Jin Wook Chung; Young Soo Lee; Jeong Hyun Kim; Myung Jun Seong; So Yeon Kim; Jin Bae Lee; Jae Kean Ryu; Ji Yong Choi; Kee Sik Kim; Sung Gug Chang; Geon Ho Lee; Sung Hi Kim Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Wilmer W Nichols; Scott J Denardo; B Delia Johnson; Barry L Sharaf; C Noel Bairey Merz; Carl J Pepine Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Jan Poleszczuk; Malgorzata Debowska; Wojciech Dabrowski; Alicja Wojcik-Zaluska; Wojciech Zaluska; Jacek Waniewski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tuuli Teeäär; Martin Serg; Kaido Paapstel; Mare Vähi; Jaak Kals; John R Cockcroft; Mihkel Zilmer; Jaan Eha; Priit Kampus Journal: Int J Hypertens Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 2.420
Authors: David Corcoran; Aleksandra Radjenovic; Ify R Mordi; Sheraz A Nazir; Simon J Wilson; Markus Hinder; Denise P Yates; Surendra Machineni; Jose Alcantara; Margaret F Prescott; Barbara Gugliotta; Yinuo Pang; Niko Tzemos; Scott I Semple; David E Newby; Gerry P McCann; Iain Squire; Colin Berry Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 10.787