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

Xiaoqing Peng*; Martin Schultz; Walter Abhayaratna; Michael Stowasser; James Sharman

doi:10.1016/j.artres.2015.10.292

<Previous Article In Issue

Next Article In Issue>

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.2015.10.292 How 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 (Cuff_CBP) 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 (Ton_CBP).

Methods: Consecutive Cuff_CBP (SphygmoCor XCEL) and Ton_CBP (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 (Cuff_CBP) and radial (Ton_CBP) 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 Cuff_CBP and those derived from Ton_CBP 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 Cuff_CBP compared with Ton_CBP (8.58±19.06 mmHg, ICC= 0.14, p=0.045).

Conclusion: Central systolic BP, diastolic BP and PP derived from Cuff_CBP are substantially equivalent to Ton_CBP, although the level of agreement is dependent on calibration method. Further validity testing of Cuff_CBP 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)

<Previous Article In Issue

Next Article In Issue>

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.2015.10.292 How to use a DOI?
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.

Cite this article

ris enw bib

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  -

download .riscopy to clipboard