Siegfried Wassertheurer1, Bernhard Hametner1, Christopher C Mayer1, Ahmed Hafez2, Kazuaki Negishi3, Theodore G Papaioannou4, Athanase D Protogerou5, James E Sharman3, Thomas Weber2. 1. Department of Biomedical Systems, Center for Health & Bioresources, Austrian Institute of Technology (AIT), Vienna. 2. Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, Wels, Austria. 3. Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 4. Biomedical Engineering Unit, First Department of Cardiology, Medical School, Hippokration Hospital. 5. Cardiovascular Prevention and Research Unit, Department of Pathophysiology, 'Laiko' Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that the method of calibration directly influences the association between brachial systolic blood pressure (bSBP) and estimated aortic systolic blood pressure (aSBP) and subsequently affects prognostic and diagnostic differentiation power of the latter. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between different methods of systolic pressure assessment in a large cohort and its comparison with recently published evidence. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: During a public health campaign, cardiovascular hemodynamic data were assessed using a validated oscillometric device in a pharmacy setting. The device measures bSBP, mean arterial pressure, and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and records brachial waveforms at the DBP level. aSBP1 was derived using bSBP and DBP and aSBP2 using measured mean arterial pressure and DBP for waveform calibration. In addition to pressures, age, sex, and anthropometric data were recorded. Regression analysis was carried out to investigate associations. RESULTS: A total of 7409 (5133/2276, female/male) individuals with a median age of 54 years were sampled. aSBPs differed significantly from bSBP (126.0 mmHg) for aSBP1 (117.0 mmHg) and aSBP2 (127.5 mmHg, both P<0.0001). Regression analysis showed that aSBP2 (R=0.853) is significantly less associated with bSBP than aSBP1 (R=0.937) (Williams' test, P<0.001 for comparison). Subgroup analysis showed the major influence of sex and heart rate. The association between bSBP, aSBP1 (R=0.83), and aSBP2 (R=0.66), respectively, reduced significantly for borderline hypertensives (P<0.001 for comparison). CONCLUSION: In contrast to aSBP1, the association between bSBP and aSBP2 is significantly less dominant and therefore aSBP2 may have potential prognostic superiority over bSBP.
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that the method of calibration directly influences the association between brachial systolic blood pressure (bSBP) and estimated aortic systolic blood pressure (aSBP) and subsequently affects prognostic and diagnostic differentiation power of the latter. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between different methods of systolic pressure assessment in a large cohort and its comparison with recently published evidence. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: During a public health campaign, cardiovascular hemodynamic data were assessed using a validated oscillometric device in a pharmacy setting. The device measures bSBP, mean arterial pressure, and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and records brachial waveforms at the DBP level. aSBP1 was derived using bSBP and DBP and aSBP2 using measured mean arterial pressure and DBP for waveform calibration. In addition to pressures, age, sex, and anthropometric data were recorded. Regression analysis was carried out to investigate associations. RESULTS: A total of 7409 (5133/2276, female/male) individuals with a median age of 54 years were sampled. aSBPs differed significantly from bSBP (126.0 mmHg) for aSBP1 (117.0 mmHg) and aSBP2 (127.5 mmHg, both P<0.0001). Regression analysis showed that aSBP2 (R=0.853) is significantly less associated with bSBP than aSBP1 (R=0.937) (Williams' test, P<0.001 for comparison). Subgroup analysis showed the major influence of sex and heart rate. The association between bSBP, aSBP1 (R=0.83), and aSBP2 (R=0.66), respectively, reduced significantly for borderline hypertensives (P<0.001 for comparison). CONCLUSION: In contrast to aSBP1, the association between bSBP and aSBP2 is significantly less dominant and therefore aSBP2 may have potential prognostic superiority over bSBP.
Authors: Agustina Zinoveev; Juan M Castro; Victoria García-Espinosa; Mariana Marin; Pedro Chiesa; Daniel Bia; Yanina Zócalo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas Weber; Athanase D Protogerou; Mohsen Agharazii; Antonis Argyris; Sola Aoun Bahous; Jose R Banegas; Ronald K Binder; Jacques Blacher; Andréa Araujo Brandao; Juan J Cruz; Kathrin Danninger; Cristina Giannatasio; Auxiliadora Graciani; Bernhard Hametner; Piotr Jankowski; Yan Li; Alessandro Maloberti; Christopher C Mayer; Barry J McDonnell; Carmel M McEniery; Marco Antonio Mota Gomes; Annelise Machado Gomes; Maria Lorenza Muiesan; Janos Nemcsik; Anna Paini; Enrique Rodilla; Aletta E Schutte; Petros P Sfikakis; Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios; Alexandre Vallée; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Lisa Ware; Ian Wilkinson; Robert Zweiker; James E Sharman; Siegfried Wassertheurer Journal: Hypertension Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 10.190