Artery Research

Volume 12, Issue C, December 2015, Pages 26 - 26

P6.8 COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE ESTIMATED BY UPPER-ARM CUFF-BASED DEVICE WITH RADIAL TONOMETRY

Authors
Xiaoqing Peng*1, Martin Schultz1, Walter Abhayaratna2, Michael Stowasser3, James Sharman1
1Menzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
2Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
3The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Available Online 23 November 2015.
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2015.10.292How to use a DOI?
Abstract

Background: New techniques that measure central blood pressure (BP) using an upper arm cuff-based approach require assessment for performance. The aim of this study was to compare a cuff-based device (CuffCBP) to estimate central BP indices [systolic BP, diastolic BP, pulse pressure (PP), augmentation pressure (AP), augmentation index (AIx)] with the non-invasive reference standard of radial tonometry (TonCBP).

Methods: Consecutive CuffCBP (SphygmoCor XCEL) and TonCBP (SphygmoCor 8.1) duplicate recordings were measured at seated rest in 182 people with treated hypertension (aged 61±7 years, 48% male). Agreement of estimated central BP indices between methods was assessed using standard calibration of brachial (CuffCBP) and radial (TonCBP) waveforms with brachial systolic BP and diastolic BP (measured with the XCEL device), as well as by re-calibration with brachial mean arterial pressure (MAP) and diastolic BP.

Results: The mean difference±SD for systolic BP, diastolic BP, and PP between CuffCBP and those derived from TonCBP were −0.89±3.48 mmHg (intra-class correlation [ICC]=0.98, p<0.001), −0.50±1.54 mmHg (ICC=0.99, p<0.001), and −0.42±3.57 mmHg (ICC=0.97, p<0.001), indicating good agreement. Wider limits of agreement were observed for AP and AIx (0.91±5.31 mmHg, ICC=0.75, p<0.001; −0.99±10.91%, ICC=0.75, p<0.001). Re-calibration with MAP and diastolic BP resulted in an overestimation of systolic BP with CuffCBP compared with TonCBP (8.58±19.06 mmHg, ICC= 0.14, p=0.045).

Conclusion: Central systolic BP, diastolic BP and PP derived from CuffCBP are substantially equivalent to TonCBP, although the level of agreement is dependent on calibration method. Further validity testing of CuffCBP by comparison with invasive central BP will be required.

Open Access
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Download article (PDF)
View full text (HTML)

Journal
Artery Research
Volume-Issue
12 - C
Pages
26 - 26
Publication Date
2015/11/23
ISSN (Online)
1876-4401
ISSN (Print)
1872-9312
DOI
10.1016/j.artres.2015.10.292How 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  - Xiaoqing Peng*
AU  - Martin Schultz
AU  - Walter Abhayaratna
AU  - Michael Stowasser
AU  - James Sharman
PY  - 2015
DA  - 2015/11/23
TI  - P6.8 COMPARISON OF CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE ESTIMATED BY UPPER-ARM CUFF-BASED DEVICE WITH RADIAL TONOMETRY
JO  - Artery Research
SP  - 26
EP  - 26
VL  - 12
IS  - C
SN  - 1876-4401
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2015.10.292
DO  - 10.1016/j.artres.2015.10.292
ID  - Peng*2015
ER  -