Artery Research

Volume 2, Issue 3, August 2008, Pages 88 - 88

03.05 ESTIMATED CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE: IMPORTANCE OF RADIAL ARTERY PRESSURE WAVEFORM CALIBRATION

Authors
D. Mahieu1, E.R. Rietzschel2, M.L. De Buyzere2, F. Verbeke3, T.C. Gillebert2, G. De Backer4, D. De Bacquer4, P. Verdonck5, L.M. Van Bortel1, P. Segers5
1Department of Pharmacology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
2Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
3Department of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
4Department of Public Health, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
5Cardiovascular Mechanics and Biofluid Dynamics, IBiTech, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Available Online 15 September 2008.
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2008.08.293How to use a DOI?
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Background: Non-invasive estimation of central blood pressure from radial artery (RA) pressure waveforms is increasingly applied. We investigated the impact of RA waveform calibration on central blood pressure assessment, with focus on the one-third rule used to estimate mean arterial blood pressure (MAP).

Methods: Pressure waveforms were non-invasively measured at the radial (RA), brachial (BA), and carotid (CA) artery in 1899 apparently healthy subjects (age 45.8±6.1 yr). RA and CA waveforms were calibrated using DBPBA and (i) SBPBA; (ii) MAP estimated with the one-third rule; (iii) MAP estimated as DBPBA + 40% of BA pulse pressure (PPBA), and (iv) MAP from the scaled BA pressure waveform (MAPref). Central SBP was obtained via a transfer function (SBPTF).

Results: SBPTF calculated by assuming SBPBA=SBPRA (i), with the one-third rule (ii) and 40% rule (iii) calibration was respectively 6.2±4.8, 11.9±5.5 and 3.7±5.3 mmHg (p<0.001) lower than SBPCA calibrated with method (iv), considered as the reference value. Applying the 1/3rd rule, brachial-to-radial amplification was negative (−6.3±4.5 mmHg), while positive (6.5±4.9 mmHg) as expected with reference method (iv). PPBA and brachial-to-radial amplification were main determinants of the difference between SBPCA and SBPTF.

Conclusions: SBPTF is highly sensitive to the RA calibration procedure which determines the extent of brachial-to-radial pressure amplification accounted for. The 1/3rd rule should be avoided to calibrate radial artery pressure waveforms. We therefore advise to use 40% of the PP to assess MAP as advocated by Bos et al. when brachial tonometry measurements are not available.

Journal
Artery Research
Volume-Issue
2 - 3
Pages
88 - 88
Publication Date
2008/09/15
ISSN (Online)
1876-4401
ISSN (Print)
1872-9312
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2008.08.293How to use a DOI?
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Cite this article

TY  - JOUR
AU  - D. Mahieu
AU  - E.R. Rietzschel
AU  - M.L. De Buyzere
AU  - F. Verbeke
AU  - T.C. Gillebert
AU  - G. De Backer
AU  - D. De Bacquer
AU  - P. Verdonck
AU  - L.M. Van Bortel
AU  - P. Segers
PY  - 2008
DA  - 2008/09/15
TI  - 03.05 ESTIMATED CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE: IMPORTANCE OF RADIAL ARTERY PRESSURE WAVEFORM CALIBRATION
JO  - Artery Research
SP  - 88
EP  - 88
VL  - 2
IS  - 3
SN  - 1876-4401
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2008.08.293
DO  - 10.1016/j.artres.2008.08.293
ID  - Mahieu2008
ER  -