BACKGROUND: Central blood pressure (BP) has attracted increasing interest because of a potential superiority over brachial BP in predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Several devices estimating central BP noninvasively are now available. The aim of our study was to determine the validity of the Arteriograph, a brachial cuff-based, oscillometric device, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We measured central BP invasively and compared it with the Arteriograph-estimated values in 22 type 2 diabetic patients referred to elective coronary angiography. RESULTS: The difference (invasively measured BP minus Arteriograph-estimated BP) in central systolic BP (SBP) was 4.4±8.7 mm Hg (P = 0.03). The limits of agreement were ±17.1 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with invasively measured central SBP, we found a systematic underestimation by the Arteriograph. However, the limits of agreement were similar to the previous Arteriograph validation study and to the invasive validation studies of other brachial cuff-based, oscillometric devices. A limitation in our study was the large number of patients (n = 14 of 36) in which the Arteriograph was unable to analyze the pressure curves. In a research setting, the Arteriograph seems applicable in patients with type 2 diabetes. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01538290.
BACKGROUND: Central blood pressure (BP) has attracted increasing interest because of a potential superiority over brachial BP in predicting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Several devices estimating central BP noninvasively are now available. The aim of our study was to determine the validity of the Arteriograph, a brachial cuff-based, oscillometric device, in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We measured central BP invasively and compared it with the Arteriograph-estimated values in 22 type 2 diabetic patients referred to elective coronary angiography. RESULTS: The difference (invasively measured BP minus Arteriograph-estimated BP) in central systolic BP (SBP) was 4.4±8.7 mm Hg (P = 0.03). The limits of agreement were ±17.1 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with invasively measured central SBP, we found a systematic underestimation by the Arteriograph. However, the limits of agreement were similar to the previous Arteriograph validation study and to the invasive validation studies of other brachial cuff-based, oscillometric devices. A limitation in our study was the large number of patients (n = 14 of 36) in which the Arteriograph was unable to analyze the pressure curves. In a research setting, the Arteriograph seems applicable in patients with type 2 diabetes. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01538290.
Entities:
Keywords:
blood pressure; brachial cuff-based, oscillometric devices for measurement of central BP; cardiovascular disease; cardiovascular risk; central blood pressure (BP); diabetes; hypertension; invasive validation of brachial cuff-based, oscillometric devices noninvasive measurement of central BP.
Authors: Stefano Omboni; Igor N Posokhov; Yulia V Kotovskaya; Athanase D Protogerou; Jacques Blacher Journal: Curr Hypertens Rep Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 5.369
Authors: Thijs L Braber; Niek H J Prakken; Arend Mosterd; Willem P Th M Mali; Pieter A F M Doevendans; Michiel L Bots; Birgitta K Velthuis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jozef Bulas; Mária Potočárová; Ján Murín; Katarína Kozlíková; Ján Luha; Martin Čaprnda Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.411