Artery Research

Volume 6, Issue 4, December 2012, Pages 165 - 166

P2.08 CENTRAL-TO-PERIPHERAL BLOOD PRESSURE AMPLIFICATION: INVASIVE VALIDATION OF TWO DEVICES (SPHYGMOCOR AND OMRON HEM9000AI)

Authors
G. Pucci1, F. Battista1, S. Notaristefano2, C. Cavallini2, E. Mannarino3, G. Schillaci1
1Unit of Internal Medicine, University of Perugia, Terni, Italy
2Cardiology Department, Perugia Hospital, Perugia, Italy
3Internal Medicine, Angiology and Atherosclerotic Diseases, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
Available Online 17 November 2012.
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2012.09.089How to use a DOI?
Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Introduction: central-to-peripheral systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) amplification (SBP-amp, PP-amp) are independent predictors of cardiovascular events beyond brachial BP. The non-invasive estimation of central BP is limited by the differences between invasive brachial BP and cuff-based BP measurements. SBP-amp and PP-amp, given their independence from BP, are less influenced by brachial BP input errors.

Objective: to compare SBP-amp and PP-amp given by Omron HEM9000AI and SphygmoCor devices with invasive SBP-amp and PP-amp.

Methods: during coronary angiogram, invasive BP was measured in ascending aorta and in the brachial artery after pulling back a 6F fluid-filled catheter in 40 patients (66±12 years, 88% males). Simultaneously, radial waveform was acquired by the two devices contralaterally, and brachial BP was measured oscillometrically. Radial waveform was calibrated to brachial SBP/DBP. Radial-to-aortic transfer function (SphygmoCor) or the second systolic peak (HEM9000AI) were used for central BP estimation. Amplification was calculated as brachial BP/central BP.

Results: invasive aortic and brachial BP were 139/71±18/10 mmHg and 146/68±18/10 mmHg. Both devices underestimated central SBP (HEM9000AI -6±11 mmHg, SphygmoCor −18±9, both p<0.001). Invasive SBP-amp was 1.05±0.07 while invasive PP-amp was 1.18±0.19. HEM9000AI provided reasonable estimates of SBP-amp and PP-amp (ΔSBP-amp −0.01±0.08, ΔPP-amp −0.06±0.21, both p=n.s.), while SphygmoCor overestimated both SBP-amp and PP-amp (Δ vs invasive 0.08±0.07 and 0.15±0.16, both p<0.001, Figure).

Conclusions: SBP-amp and PP-amp non-invasively estimated by HEM9000AI was in line with invasive SBP-amp and PP-amp, while SphygmoCor overestimated SBP-amp and PP-amp. Systematic measurement errors or other variables may be responsible for the difference between the two devices.

Journal
Artery Research
Volume-Issue
6 - 4
Pages
165 - 166
Publication Date
2012/11/17
ISSN (Online)
1876-4401
ISSN (Print)
1872-9312
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2012.09.089How 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  - G. Pucci
AU  - F. Battista
AU  - S. Notaristefano
AU  - C. Cavallini
AU  - E. Mannarino
AU  - G. Schillaci
PY  - 2012
DA  - 2012/11/17
TI  - P2.08 CENTRAL-TO-PERIPHERAL BLOOD PRESSURE AMPLIFICATION: INVASIVE VALIDATION OF TWO DEVICES (SPHYGMOCOR AND OMRON HEM9000AI)
JO  - Artery Research
SP  - 165
EP  - 166
VL  - 6
IS  - 4
SN  - 1876-4401
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2012.09.089
DO  - 10.1016/j.artres.2012.09.089
ID  - Pucci2012
ER  -