10.8 SYSTOLIC AORTIC PRESSURE DERIVED FROM DIFFERENT CALIBRATION METHODS IN THE GENERAL POPULATION

DOI

10.1016/j.artres.2016.10.086How to use a DOI?

Abstract

Background: There is recent evidence from different research groups that accuracy [1] and prognostic value [2,3,4] of systolic aortic pressure significantly depends on the method of calibration. Although these results consistently show superiority of mean pressure calibration (aSBP2) over both, traditional calibrated aortic systolic (aSBP1) and brachial systolic pressure (bSBP), the investigated cohorts were relatively small and it is still unclear whether the observed associations between pressures are preserved in the general population.

Objective: Therefore the objective of this work is the investigation of associations between different methods of systolic pressure assessment it a large cohort and its comparison to reported outcome.

Methods: During a public health campaign cardiovascular hemodynamic data was assessed using the Mobil-O-Graph^® device and ARCSolver^® algorithms in a kiosk like setting. Systolic aortic pressure was derived from two different calibrations: systolic and diastolic pressure and mean and diastolic pressure. Furthermore brachial pressures, age, sex and anthropometric data were recorded and regression analysis was performed to investigate associations.

Results: Summary statistics of 7409 valid measurements are reported in Table 1. Systolic and subsequent pulse pressures significantly differed from bSPB for aSBP1 but not for aSBP2. Regression analysis unveiled that aSBP2 (R²=0.853) is significantly (p<0.00001) less associated with bSBP than aSBP1 (R²=0.937), see Figure 1.

Conclusions: Comparison of our data with literature suggests that unlike aSBP1 [5] the association between bSBP and aSBP2 is only slightly influenced by increased sample size [2] and therefore prognostic superiority over bSBP is likely to be sustainable and warrants further investigation.

	Male			Female
	N	Median	2.5 – 97.5 P	N	Median	2.5 – 97.5 P
Age	2276	54,000	24,000 to 83,000	5133	54,000	20,000 to 81,000
aSBP1	2276	120,803	98,754 to 153,254	5133	114,872	91,723 to 152,578
aSBP2	2276	133,102	108,651 to 172,962	5133	124,914	100,692 to 167,257
SBP	2276	131,000	107,000 to 168,000	5133	124,000	100,000 to 165,000
MBP	2276	106,000	85,000 to 133,000	5133	99,000	79,000 to 129,000
DBP	2276	84,000	63,000 to 109,000	5133	77,000	58,000 to 102,175
BMI	2276	26,219	20,065 to 35,774	5133	23,875	18,218 to 36,634

Regression between bSBP, aSBP1 and aSBP2 respectively.

Summary statistics

Open Access

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

Download article (PDF)
View full text (HTML)

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Siegfried Wassertheurer
AU  - Bernhard Hametner
AU  - Christopher Mayer
AU  - Ahmed Hafez
AU  - Thomas Weber
PY  - 2016
DA  - 2016/11/24
TI  - 10.8 SYSTOLIC AORTIC PRESSURE DERIVED FROM DIFFERENT CALIBRATION METHODS IN THE GENERAL POPULATION
JO  - Artery Research
SP  - 73
EP  - 73
VL  - 16
IS  - C
SN  - 1876-4401
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artres.2016.10.086
DO  - 10.1016/j.artres.2016.10.086
ID  - Wassertheurer2016
ER  -