Alejandro Díaz1, Daniel Bia2, Yanina Zócalo2. 1. Instituto de Investigación en Ciencias de la Salud, UNICEN-CCT CONICET Tandil, 4 de Abril 618, 7000, Tandil, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. alejandrounicen@gmail.com. 2. Departamento de Fisiología, Facultad de Medicina, Centro Universitario de Investigación, Innovación y Diagnóstico Arterial (CUiiDARTE), Universidad de la República, General Flores 2125, 11800, Montevideo, Uruguay.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peripheral and aortic systolic blood pressure (pSBP and aoSBP) were measured using different methodological and calibration approaches to analyze the association and agreement between pSBP and/or aoSBP, and the association of pSBP and aoSBP with left ventricle (LV) and atrium (LA) structural-functional characteristics. METHODS: In healthy subjects (n = 269, age: 9-85 years; n = 147, age < 24 years) LV and LA parameters were echocardiography-derived. pSBP and aoSBP were obtained by brachial sub-diastolic (Mobil-O-Graph®) and supra-systolic oscillometry (Arteriograph®) and aortic diameter waveform re-calibration (RCD; ultrasonography), using three calibration schemes: systo-diastolic (SD), calculated mean (CM), and oscillometric mean (OscM). RESULTS: Always pSBP and aoSBP were positively associated; aoSBP obtained with the Mobil-O-Graph® and calibrated to CM or OscM were the ones that showed the lowest levels of association with the remaining forms of aoSBP and pSBP. Bland-Altman related mean errors varied noticeably (e.g. - 27, - 23, - 17, - 12 or 8 mmHg when aoSBP obtained with MOG (OscM) was compared with data from other methodological and calibration schemes). The aoSBP data obtained with Mobil-O-Graph® (calibration: CM and OscM) showed the highest levels of association with cardiac structural characteristics. aoSBP values obtained calibrating to OscM were higher than those obtained calibrating to SD or CM. CONCLUSIONS: aoSBP obtained with Mobil-O-Graph® and calibrated to CM or OscM showed (1) lower association with other forms of aoSBP and pSBP determination and (2) higher levels of association with LV and LA structural characteristics. Differences in aoSBP data between approaches were more sensitive to the calibration method than to the device used.
INTRODUCTION: Peripheral and aortic systolic blood pressure (pSBP and aoSBP) were measured using different methodological and calibration approaches to analyze the association and agreement between pSBP and/or aoSBP, and the association of pSBP and aoSBP with left ventricle (LV) and atrium (LA) structural-functional characteristics. METHODS: In healthy subjects (n = 269, age: 9-85 years; n = 147, age < 24 years) LV and LA parameters were echocardiography-derived. pSBP and aoSBP were obtained by brachial sub-diastolic (Mobil-O-Graph®) and supra-systolic oscillometry (Arteriograph®) and aortic diameter waveform re-calibration (RCD; ultrasonography), using three calibration schemes: systo-diastolic (SD), calculated mean (CM), and oscillometric mean (OscM). RESULTS: Always pSBP and aoSBP were positively associated; aoSBP obtained with the Mobil-O-Graph® and calibrated to CM or OscM were the ones that showed the lowest levels of association with the remaining forms of aoSBP and pSBP. Bland-Altman related mean errors varied noticeably (e.g. - 27, - 23, - 17, - 12 or 8 mmHg when aoSBP obtained with MOG (OscM) was compared with data from other methodological and calibration schemes). The aoSBP data obtained with Mobil-O-Graph® (calibration: CM and OscM) showed the highest levels of association with cardiac structural characteristics. aoSBP values obtained calibrating to OscM were higher than those obtained calibrating to SD or CM. CONCLUSIONS: aoSBP obtained with Mobil-O-Graph® and calibrated to CM or OscM showed (1) lower association with other forms of aoSBP and pSBP determination and (2) higher levels of association with LV and LA structural characteristics. Differences in aoSBP data between approaches were more sensitive to the calibration method than to the device used.
Authors: Wolfgang Weiss; Christopher Gohlisch; Christl Harsch-Gladisch; Markus Tölle; Walter Zidek; Markus van der Giet Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: S J Vermeersch; E R Rietzschel; M L De Buyzere; D De Bacquer; G De Backer; L M Van Bortel; T C Gillebert; P R Verdonck; P Segers Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: Thomas Weber; Siegfried Wassertheurer; Martin Rammer; Edwin Maurer; Bernhard Hametner; Christopher C Mayer; Johannes Kropf; Bernd Eber Journal: Hypertension Date: 2011-09-12 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Siegfried Wassertheurer; Bernhard Hametner; Christopher C Mayer; Ahmed Hafez; Kazuaki Negishi; Theodore G Papaioannou; Athanase D Protogerou; James E Sharman; Thomas Weber Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Yanina Zócalo; Daniel Bia; Ricardo L Armentano; Juan González-Moreno; Gonzalo Varela; Fernando Calleriza; Walter Reyes-Caorsi Journal: Europace Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 5.214
Authors: Theodore G Papaioannou; John P Lekakis; Emmanouil N Karatzis; Christos M Papamichael; Kimon S Stamatelopoulos; Athanassios D Protogerou; Myron Mavrikakis; Christodoulos Stefanadis Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2005-10-17 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Athanase D Protogerou; Antonis A Argyris; Theodoros G Papaioannou; Georgios E Kollias; Giorgos D Konstantonis; Efthimia Nasothimiou; Apostolos Achimastos; Jacques Blacher; Michel E Safar; Petros P Sfikakis Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 4.844
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