BACKGROUND: Studies have established the prognostic value of central SBP and pulse pressure (PP). The SphygmoCor XCEL (AtCor Medical, Sydney, Australia) device provides practical central blood pressure (BP) measurement for daily clinical use with its easy-to-use, operator-independent procedure. However, this device has not been validated against invasive measurement. METHOD: Simultaneous oscillometric and high-fidelity invasive measurements of central SBP and PP were compared for 36 patients who underwent coronary arteriography. Invasive measurement of brachial BP was also performed. Oscillometrically measured brachial SBP and DBP were used for calibration. RESULTS: The differences between the invasive and the oscillometric measurements were -4.6 ± 9.9 mmHg for central SBP and -18.5 ± 10.6 mmHg for central PP (mean ± SD). We found strong correlation between the invasive and oscillometric measurements (central SBP and central PP, respectively: r = 0.91 and 0.89; slope, 1.28 and 1.38; both P < 0.001). Although the large slopes of the regression lines indicated a systemic bias toward lower values when measuring in high pressure ranges, the bias was mainly due to calibration error rather than device-specific error because errors of the central measurements correlated well with those of brachial measurements (SBP and PP, respectively: r = 0.80 and 0.77; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The impaired accuracy of central BP measurement was mainly due to calibration-derived, but not device-dependent, bias. Strong correlation between oscillometric and invasive measurements indicates that SphygmoCor XCEL warrants future investigations to determine the clinical validity of this device.
BACKGROUND: Studies have established the prognostic value of central SBP and pulse pressure (PP). The SphygmoCor XCEL (AtCor Medical, Sydney, Australia) device provides practical central blood pressure (BP) measurement for daily clinical use with its easy-to-use, operator-independent procedure. However, this device has not been validated against invasive measurement. METHOD: Simultaneous oscillometric and high-fidelity invasive measurements of central SBP and PP were compared for 36 patients who underwent coronary arteriography. Invasive measurement of brachial BP was also performed. Oscillometrically measured brachial SBP and DBP were used for calibration. RESULTS: The differences between the invasive and the oscillometric measurements were -4.6 ± 9.9 mmHg for central SBP and -18.5 ± 10.6 mmHg for central PP (mean ± SD). We found strong correlation between the invasive and oscillometric measurements (central SBP and central PP, respectively: r = 0.91 and 0.89; slope, 1.28 and 1.38; both P < 0.001). Although the large slopes of the regression lines indicated a systemic bias toward lower values when measuring in high pressure ranges, the bias was mainly due to calibration error rather than device-specific error because errors of the central measurements correlated well with those of brachial measurements (SBP and PP, respectively: r = 0.80 and 0.77; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The impaired accuracy of central BP measurement was mainly due to calibration-derived, but not device-dependent, bias. Strong correlation between oscillometric and invasive measurements indicates that SphygmoCor XCEL warrants future investigations to determine the clinical validity of this device.
Authors: Lee Stoner; Keeron Stone; Gabriel Zieff; EriK D Hanson; Daniel Credeur; James Faulkner; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Simon Fryer Journal: J Hum Hypertens Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 3.012
Authors: Cara Esposito; Priscilla Machado; Ira S Cohen; Praveen Mehrotra; Michael Savage; David Fischman; Marguerite Davis; Nicholas Ruggiero; Paul Walinsky; Maureen E McDonald; Kristopher Dickie; Flemming Forsberg; Jaydev K Dave Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 2.689
Authors: Xiaoqing Peng; Martin G Schultz; Dean S Picone; Nathan Dwyer; J Andrew Black; Philip Roberts-Thomson; James E Sharman Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Alyssa M Tindall; Kristina S Petersen; Ann C Skulas-Ray; Chesney K Richter; David N Proctor; Penny M Kris-Etherton Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Yasmina Serinel; Camilla Hoyos; Ahmad Qasem; Brendon J Yee; Ronald R Grunstein; Keith H Wong; Craig L Phillips Journal: Int J Cardiol Hypertens Date: 2019-04-09
Authors: Jose M De la Torre Hernández; Gabriela Veiga Fernandez; Jonathan Brown; Fermin Sainz Laso; Dae-Hyun Lee; Victor Fradejas; Tamara Garcia Camarero; Sammy Elmariah; Ignacio Inglessis; Javier Zueco; Jose A Vazquez de Prada; Eyal Ben-Assa; Elazer R Edelman Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Lucas S Aparicio; Qi-Fang Huang; Jesus D Melgarejo; Dong-Mei Wei; Lutgarde Thijs; Fang-Fei Wei; Natasza Gilis-Malinowska; Chang-Sheng Sheng; José Boggia; Teemu J Niiranen; Augustine N Odili; Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek; Jessica Barochiner; Daniel Ackermann; Kalina Kawecka-Jaszcz; Valérie Tikhonoff; Zhen-Yu Zhang; Edoardo Casiglia; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Jan Filipovský; Aletta E Schutte; Wen-Yi Yang; Antti M Jula; Angela J Woodiwiss; Murielle Bochud; Gavin R Norton; Ji-Guang Wang; Yan Li; Jan A Staessen Journal: Am J Hypertens Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 2.689