Jonathan P Mynard1,2,3,4, Greta Goldsmith1,4, Gabriella Springall1,4, Lucas Eastaugh1,4, Geoffrey K Lane1,4, Diana Zannino5, Joseph J Smolich1,2, Alberto Avolio6, Michael M H Cheung1,2,4. 1. Heart Research, Murdoch Children's Research Institute. 2. Department of Paediatrics. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Melbourne. 4. Department of Cardiology, Royal Children's Hospital. 5. Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics Unit, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 6. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Central aortic SBP (cSBP) may have superior prognostic value compared with peripheral SBP (pSBP), but noninvasive cSBP measurement techniques have not been formally validated in children and adolescents. METHOD: This study assessed the accuracy of two automated devices and the radial tonometry/transfer function method (RT-TF) for estimating central pressures and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) in this population, with adherence to validation guidelines for central pressure devices. In 69 children/adolescents aged 3-18 years undergoing clinically indicated aortic catheterization, high fidelity ascending aortic cSBP was measured with a micromanometer-tipped wire and compared with values from SphygmoCor XCEL, Mobil-O-Graph (systolic/diastolic calibration, MoG-C1, or mean/diastolic calibration, MoG-C2) and RT-TF. Reference intra-arterial pSBP was derived from the tonometry pulse calibrated to central mean/diastolic pressures. RESULTS: XCEL, MoG-C1 and MoG-C2 overestimated cSBP by 7.9 ± 6.8 mmHg (mean ± SD), 5.7 ± 10.3 mmHg, and 19.1 ± 14.9 mmHg, exceeding the validation cut-off (5 ± 8 mmHg). Brachial pSBP was also overestimated by XCEL (10.9 ± 8.4 mmHg) and Mobil-O-Graph (11.5 ± 12.3 mmHg). By contrast, central and brachial diastolic pressures were underestimated by the automated devices, albeit mostly within acceptable limits; pulse pressures were, therefore, substantially overestimated. Central-brachial PPA (4.5 ± 4.4 mmHg) was overestimated by XCEL (8.7 ± 3.2 mmHg) and MoG-C1 (11.1 ± 6.4 mmHg), but underestimated by MoG-C2 (-3.0 ± 6.6 mmHg). Given accurate pulse calibration, RT-TF achieved acceptable accuracy for cSBP (-0.2 ± 4.6 mmHg) and central-radial PPA (1.9 ± 5.1 mmHg). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, XCEL and Mobil-O-Graph overestimated pSBP and cSBP in children and adolescents. cSBP can be obtained via the same transfer function used in adults, but accurate pressure pulse calibration is critical.Video Abstracts: http://links.lww.com/HJH/B222.
BACKGROUND: Central aortic SBP (cSBP) may have superior prognostic value compared with peripheral SBP (pSBP), but noninvasive cSBP measurement techniques have not been formally validated in children and adolescents. METHOD: This study assessed the accuracy of two automated devices and the radial tonometry/transfer function method (RT-TF) for estimating central pressures and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) in this population, with adherence to validation guidelines for central pressure devices. In 69 children/adolescents aged 3-18 years undergoing clinically indicated aortic catheterization, high fidelity ascending aortic cSBP was measured with a micromanometer-tipped wire and compared with values from SphygmoCor XCEL, Mobil-O-Graph (systolic/diastolic calibration, MoG-C1, or mean/diastolic calibration, MoG-C2) and RT-TF. Reference intra-arterial pSBP was derived from the tonometry pulse calibrated to central mean/diastolic pressures. RESULTS: XCEL, MoG-C1 and MoG-C2 overestimated cSBP by 7.9 ± 6.8 mmHg (mean ± SD), 5.7 ± 10.3 mmHg, and 19.1 ± 14.9 mmHg, exceeding the validation cut-off (5 ± 8 mmHg). Brachial pSBP was also overestimated by XCEL (10.9 ± 8.4 mmHg) and Mobil-O-Graph (11.5 ± 12.3 mmHg). By contrast, central and brachial diastolic pressures were underestimated by the automated devices, albeit mostly within acceptable limits; pulse pressures were, therefore, substantially overestimated. Central-brachial PPA (4.5 ± 4.4 mmHg) was overestimated by XCEL (8.7 ± 3.2 mmHg) and MoG-C1 (11.1 ± 6.4 mmHg), but underestimated by MoG-C2 (-3.0 ± 6.6 mmHg). Given accurate pulse calibration, RT-TF achieved acceptable accuracy for cSBP (-0.2 ± 4.6 mmHg) and central-radial PPA (1.9 ± 5.1 mmHg). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, XCEL and Mobil-O-Graph overestimated pSBP and cSBP in children and adolescents. cSBP can be obtained via the same transfer function used in adults, but accurate pressure pulse calibration is critical.Video Abstracts: http://links.lww.com/HJH/B222.
Authors: Melanie M Clarke; Claire E Willis; Jeanie L Y Cheong; Michael M H Cheung; Jonathan P Mynard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Jonathan P Glenning; Kevin Lam; Melanie M Clarke; Hannah Bourne; Joseph J Smolich; Michael M H Cheung; Jonathan P Mynard Journal: Hypertens Res Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.872
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