BACKGROUND: The superiority of prognostic value of blood pressure (BP) measured at central aorta (CBP) over conventional brachial BP measured by cuff-based BP monitors has reignited the development of new noninvasive techniques for estimating CBP. The present study validated the accuracy of CBP measured by a newly developed stand-alone CBP monitor. METHODS: The CBP monitor provided readings of brachial systolic BP (SBP), brachial diastolic BP (DBP), central SBP, and central pulse pressure (PP). Brachial PP and central DBP were calculated from the relevant readings. The accuracy of the brachial and central SBP, PP, and DBP was validated against the simultaneously recorded invasively measured central aortic SBP, PP, and DBP, according to the invasive standard requirements for the noninvasive brachial BP monitors from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) in 85 subjects (255 measurements; age range, 30-93 years). RESULTS: The mean differences of cuff BP with reference to the invasively measured central SBP, PP, and DBP were -2.6 ± 9.0, -8.6 ± 11.2, and 6.1 ± 7.0 mm Hg, respectively, with the former two being obviously underestimated at high CBP and overestimated at low CBP. In contrast, the corresponding differences for the central SBP, PP, and DBP measured by the CBP monitor were -0.6 ± 5.5, -0.4 ± 7.0, and -0.2 ± 6.5 mm Hg, respectively, without obvious systematic bias. The distribution of measurement errors for central SBP, PP, and DBP surpassed the AAMI criteria. CONCLUSION: Central SBP, PP, and DBP can be measured accurately by a stand-alone automatic BP monitor.
BACKGROUND: The superiority of prognostic value of blood pressure (BP) measured at central aorta (CBP) over conventional brachial BP measured by cuff-based BP monitors has reignited the development of new noninvasive techniques for estimating CBP. The present study validated the accuracy of CBP measured by a newly developed stand-alone CBP monitor. METHODS: The CBP monitor provided readings of brachial systolic BP (SBP), brachial diastolic BP (DBP), central SBP, and central pulse pressure (PP). Brachial PP and central DBP were calculated from the relevant readings. The accuracy of the brachial and central SBP, PP, and DBP was validated against the simultaneously recorded invasively measured central aortic SBP, PP, and DBP, according to the invasive standard requirements for the noninvasive brachial BP monitors from the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) in 85 subjects (255 measurements; age range, 30-93 years). RESULTS: The mean differences of cuff BP with reference to the invasively measured central SBP, PP, and DBP were -2.6 ± 9.0, -8.6 ± 11.2, and 6.1 ± 7.0 mm Hg, respectively, with the former two being obviously underestimated at high CBP and overestimated at low CBP. In contrast, the corresponding differences for the central SBP, PP, and DBP measured by the CBP monitor were -0.6 ± 5.5, -0.4 ± 7.0, and -0.2 ± 6.5 mm Hg, respectively, without obvious systematic bias. The distribution of measurement errors for central SBP, PP, and DBP surpassed the AAMI criteria. CONCLUSION: Central SBP, PP, and DBP can be measured accurately by a stand-alone automatic BP monitor.
Authors: Sanne Ahles; Yala R Stevens; Peter J Joris; David Vauzour; Jos Adam; Eric de Groot; Jogchum Plat Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: James E Sharman; Alberto P Avolio; Johannes Baulmann; Athanase Benetos; Jacques Blacher; C Leigh Blizzard; Pierre Boutouyrie; Chen-Huan Chen; Phil Chowienczyk; John R Cockcroft; J Kennedy Cruickshank; Isabel Ferreira; Lorenzo Ghiadoni; Alun Hughes; Piotr Jankowski; Stephane Laurent; Barry J McDonnell; Carmel McEniery; Sandrine C Millasseau; Theodoros G Papaioannou; Gianfranco Parati; Jeong Bae Park; Athanase D Protogerou; Mary J Roman; Giuseppe Schillaci; Patrick Segers; George S Stergiou; Hirofumi Tomiyama; Raymond R Townsend; Luc M Van Bortel; Jiguang Wang; Siegfried Wassertheurer; Thomas Weber; Ian B Wilkinson; Charalambos Vlachopoulos Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 29.983