Inaccuracy of brachial blood pressure and its potential impact on treatment and aortic blood pressure estimation.

OBJECTIVE: Although brachial cuff SBP is universally used to guide hypertension management, it can differ significantly from intraarterial SBP. We examine the potential impacts of cuff-to-intraarterial brachial SBP (bSBP) mismatch on hypertension treatment and accuracy towards central SBP. METHODS: In 303 individuals, cuff bSBP (CUFF-bSBP) and central SBP were measured using a Mobil-o-Graph simultaneously to intraarterial bSBP (IA-bSBP) and aortic SBP. According to the difference between CUFF-bSBP and IA-bSBP, we identified three phenotypes: Underestimation (CUFF-bSBP < IA-bSBP by >10 mmHg); No Mismatch (CUFF-bSBP within 10 mmHg of IA-bSBP); Overestimation (CUFF-bSBP > IA-bSBP by >10 mmHg) phenotypes. Risk of overtreatment and undertreatment, and accuracy (ARTERY society criteria: mean difference ≤5 ±â€Š8 mmHg) were determined. A multiple linear regression model was used to assess variables associated with the bSBP difference. RESULTS: Underestimation (n = 142), No Mismatch (n = 136) and Overestimation (n = 25) phenotypes had relatively similar characteristics and CUFF-bSBP (124 ±â€Š17, 122 ±â€Š14, 127 ±â€Š19 mmHg, P = 0.19) but different aortic SBP (133 ±â€Š21, 120 ±â€Š16, 112 ±â€Š18 mmHg, P < 0.001). In the underestimation phenotype, 59% were at risk of undertreatment (14% in No Mismatch), whereas 50% in the Overestimation phenotype were at risk of overtreatment (17% in No Mismatch). CUFF-bSBP accurately estimated aortic SBP only in the No Mismatch Group (mean difference 1.6 ±â€Š8.2 mmHg) whereas central BP never met the accuracy criteria. Male sex, higher height and active smoking were associated with lesser underestimation of bSBP difference. CONCLUSION: The brachial cuff lacks accuracy towards intraarterial BP in a significant proportion of patients, potentially leading to increased risks of BP mismanagement and inaccurate determination of central BP. This illustrates the need to improve the accuracy of cuff-based BP monitors.

Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmark approach for femoral artery access in coronary angiography: A randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the effect of ultrasound (US)-guidance compared to the anatomical landmark (AL) approach in patients requiring femoral artery (FA) access for coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). BACKGROUND: US-guidance has been proposed as a strategy to optimize FA access, potentially leading to decreased vascular complications. METHODS: Patients requiring FA access for coronary angiography/PCI were randomized to the US-guided or AL approaches. The primary endpoint was a composite of immediate procedural vascular outcomes, and access-site outcomes at day one. Results were subsequently pooled in a study-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing US-guided FA access to another strategy. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients were randomized (64 US-guided group; 65 AL group). The primary endpoint occurred in 30 patients (47%) with US, and in 39 patients (62%) with AL (P = 0.09). Four additional studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis (1553 patients). Following data pooling, bleeding events (OR = 0.41; 95%CI 0.20-0.83; P = 0.01), venipunctures (OR = 0.18; 95%CI: 0.11-0.29; P < 0.0001), and multiple puncture attempts (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.19-0.31; P < 0.0001) were significantly improved with US-guidance, but not successful common FA cannulation (OR = 0.84; 95%CI: 0.60-1.17; P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: Our study did not show significant benefits for the use of US to guide arterial femoral access compared to the anatomical landmark approach, but pooled analysis of five randomized trials showed decreased rates of bleeding events and venipunctures, and improved first-pass success. The clinical impact of these findings is uncertain, and do not warrant a systematic use of US-guidance in this clinical setting.