Theodore G Papaioannou1, Theofani D Karageorgopoulou, Theodoros N Sergentanis, Athanase D Protogerou, Theodora Psaltopoulou, James E Sharman, Thomas Weber, Jacques Blacher, Stella S Daskalopoulou, Siegfried Wassertheurer, Ashraf W Khir, Charalambos Vlachopoulos, Nikolaos Stergiopulos, Christodoulos Stefanadis, Wilmer W Nichols, Dimitrios Tousoulis. 1. aBiomedical Engineering Unit, First Department of Cardiology, Hippokration Hospital bDepartment of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics cCardiovascular Prevention and Research Unit, Department of Pathophysiology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece dMenzies Institute for Medical Research, Tasmania, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia eCardiology Department, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, Wels, Austria fFaculty of Medicine, Paris-Descartes University, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, AP-HP, Diagnosis and Therapeutic Center, Paris, France gDivisions of Internal Medicine and Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada hAustrian Institute of Technology, Health & Environment Department, Vienna, Austria iBrunel Institute for Bioengineering, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK jLaboratory of Hemodynamics and Cardiovascular Technology, Institute of Biotechnology, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland kSchool of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut lDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although compelling evidence has established the physiological and clinical relevance of aortic SBP (a-SBP), no consensus exists regarding the validity of the available methods/techniques that noninvasively measure it. OBJECTIVES: The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the accuracy of commercial devices estimating a-SBP noninvasively, which have been validated by invasive measurement of a-SBP. Moreover their optimal mode of application, in terms of calibration, as well as specific technique and arterial site of pulse wave acquisition were further investigated. METHODS: The study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines; 22 eligible studies were included, which validated invasively 11 different commercial devices in 808 study participants. RESULTS: Overall, the error in a-SBP estimation (estimated minus actual value) was -4.49 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.06 to -2.92 mmHg]. The estimated (noninvasive) a-SBP differed from the actual (invasive) value depending on calibration method: by -1.08 mmHg (95% CI: -2.81, 0.65 mmHg) and by -5.81 mmHg (95% CI: -7.79, -3.84 mmHg), when invasively and noninvasively measured brachial BP values were used respectively; by -1.83 mmHg, (95% CI: -3.32, -0.34 mmHg), and by 7.78 mmHg (95% CI: -10.28, -5.28 mmHg), when brachial mean arterial pressure/DBP and SBP/DBP were used, respectively. CONCLUSION: Automated recording of waveforms, calibrated noninvasively by brachial mean arterial pressure/DBP values seems the most promising approach that can provide relatively more accurate, noninvasive estimation of a-SBP. It is still uncertain whether a specific device can be recommended as 'gold standard'; however, a consensus is currently demanding.
BACKGROUND: Although compelling evidence has established the physiological and clinical relevance of aortic SBP (a-SBP), no consensus exists regarding the validity of the available methods/techniques that noninvasively measure it. OBJECTIVES: The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the accuracy of commercial devices estimating a-SBP noninvasively, which have been validated by invasive measurement of a-SBP. Moreover their optimal mode of application, in terms of calibration, as well as specific technique and arterial site of pulse wave acquisition were further investigated. METHODS: The study was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines; 22 eligible studies were included, which validated invasively 11 different commercial devices in 808 study participants. RESULTS: Overall, the error in a-SBP estimation (estimated minus actual value) was -4.49 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI): -6.06 to -2.92 mmHg]. The estimated (noninvasive) a-SBP differed from the actual (invasive) value depending on calibration method: by -1.08 mmHg (95% CI: -2.81, 0.65 mmHg) and by -5.81 mmHg (95% CI: -7.79, -3.84 mmHg), when invasively and noninvasively measured brachial BP values were used respectively; by -1.83 mmHg, (95% CI: -3.32, -0.34 mmHg), and by 7.78 mmHg (95% CI: -10.28, -5.28 mmHg), when brachial mean arterial pressure/DBP and SBP/DBP were used, respectively. CONCLUSION: Automated recording of waveforms, calibrated noninvasively by brachial mean arterial pressure/DBP values seems the most promising approach that can provide relatively more accurate, noninvasive estimation of a-SBP. It is still uncertain whether a specific device can be recommended as 'gold standard'; however, a consensus is currently demanding.
Authors: Fran Yong; Gerardo Heiss; David Couper; Michelle L Meyer; Susan Cheng; Hirofumi Tanaka Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 2.689
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: Angeliki Ntineri; Anastasios Kollias; Maria Elena Zeniodi; Andriani Vazeou; Alexandra Soldatou; George S Stergiou Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 3.738