Impact of a cuff-based device calibration method on the agreement between invasive and noninvasive aortic and brachial pressure.

INTRODUCTION: Brachial cuff-based methods are increasingly used to estimate aortic systolic blood pressure (aoSBP). However, there are several unresolved issues. AIMS: to determine to what extent the scheme used to calibrate brachial records (1) can affect noninvasive obtained aoSBP levels, and consequently, the level of agreement with the aoSBP recorded invasively, and (2) how different ways of calibrating ultimately impact the relationship between aoSBP and cardiac properties. METHODS: brachial and aortic blood pressure (BP) was simultaneously obtained by invasive (catheterisation) and noninvasive (brachial oscillometric-device) methods (89 subjects). aoSBP was noninvasive obtained using three calibration schemes: 'SD': diastolic and systolic brachial BP, 'C': diastolic and calculated brachial mean BP (bMBP), 'Osc': diastolic and oscillometry-derived bMBP. Agreement between invasive and noninvasive aoSBP, and associations between BP and echocardiographic-derived parameters were analysed. CONCLUSIONS: 'C' and 'SD' schemes generated aoSBP levels lower than those recorded invasively (mean errors: 6.9 and 10.1 mmHg); the opposite was found when considering 'Osc'(mean error: -11.4 mmHg). As individuals had higher invasive aoSBP, the three calibration schemes increasingly underestimated aoSBP levels; and viceversa. The 'range' of invasive aoSBP in which the calibration schemes reach the lowest error level (-5-5 mmHg) is different: 'C': 103-131 mmHg; 'Osc': 159-201 mmHg; 'SD':101-124 mmHg. The calibration methods allowed reaching levels of association between aoSBP and cardiac characteristics, somewhat lower, but very similar to those obtained when considering invasive aoSBP. There is no evidence of a clear superiority of one calibration method over another when considering the association between aoSBP and cardiac characteristics.

Central-to-peripheral blood pressure amplification: role of the recording site, technology, analysis approach, and calibration scheme in invasive and non-invasive data agreement.

Background: Systolic blood pressure amplification (SBPA) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) can independently predict cardiovascular damage and mortality. A wide range of methods are used for the non-invasive estimation of SBPA and PPA. The most accurate non-invasive method for obtaining SBPA and/or PPA remains unknown. Aim: This study aims to evaluate the agreement between the SBPA and PPA values that are invasively and non-invasively obtained using different (1) measurement sites (radial, brachial, carotid), (2) measuring techniques (tonometry, oscillometry/plethysmography, ultrasound), (3) pulse waveform analysis approaches, and (4) calibration methods [systo-diastolic vs. approaches using brachial diastolic and mean blood pressure (BP)], with the latter calculated using different equations or measured by oscillometry. Methods: Invasive aortic and brachial pressure (catheterism) and non-invasive aortic and peripheral (brachial, radial) BP were simultaneously obtained from 34 subjects using different methodologies, analysis methods, measuring sites, and calibration methods. SBPA and PPA were quantified. Concordance correlation and the Bland-Altman analysis were performed. Results: (1) In general, SBPA and PPA levels obtained with non-invasive approaches were not associated with those recorded invasively. (2) The different non-invasive approaches led to (extremely) dissimilar results. In general, non-invasive measurements underestimated SBPA and PPA; the higher the invasive SBPA (or PPA), the greater the underestimation. (3) None of the calibration schemes, which considered non-invasive brachial BP to estimate SBPA or PPA, were better than the others. (4) SBPA and PPA levels obtained from radial artery waveform analysis (tonometry) (5) and common carotid artery ultrasound recordings and brachial artery waveform analysis, respectively, minimized the mean errors. Conclusions: Overall, the findings showed that (i) SBPA and PPA indices are not "synonymous" and (ii) non-invasive approaches would fail to accurately determine invasive SBPA or PPA levels, regardless of the recording site, analysis, and calibration methods. Non-invasive measurements generally underestimated SBPA and PPA, and the higher the invasive SBPA or PPA, the higher the underestimation. There was not a calibration scheme better than the others. Consequently, our study emphasizes the strong need to be critical of measurement techniques, to have methodological transparency, and to have expert consensus for non-invasive assessment of SBPA and PPA.

Direct estimation of central aortic pressure from measured or quantified mean and diastolic brachial blood pressure: agreement with invasive records.

Background: Recently it has been proposed a new approach to estimate aortic systolic blood pressure (aoSBP) without the need for specific devices, operator-dependent techniques and/or complex wave propagation models/algorithms. The approach proposes aoSBP can be quantified from brachial diastolic and mean blood pressure (bDBP, bMBP) as: aoSBP = bMBP2/bDBP. It remains to be assessed to what extent the method and/or equation used to obtain the bMBP levels considered in aoSBP calculation may affect the estimated aoSBP, and consequently the agreement with aoSBP invasively recorded. Methods: Brachial and aortic pressure were simultaneously obtained invasively (catheterization) and non-invasively (brachial oscillometry) in 89 subjects. aoSBP was quantified in seven different ways, using measured (oscillometry-derived) and calculated (six equations) mean blood pressure (MBP) levels. The agreement between invasive and estimated aoSBP was analyzed (Concordance correlation coefficient; Bland-Altman Test). Conclusions: The ability of the equation "aoSBP = MBP2/DBP" to (accurately) estimate (error <5 mmHg) invasive aoSBP depends on the method and equation considered to determine bMBP, and on the aoSBP levels (proportional error). Oscillometric bMBP and/or approaches that consider adjustments for heart rate or a form factor ∼40% (instead of the usual 33%) would be the best way to obtain the bMBP levels to be used to calculate aoSBP.

Aortic systolic and pulse pressure invasively and non-invasively obtained: Comparative analysis of recording techniques, arterial sites of measurement, waveform analysis algorithms and calibration methods.

Background: The non-invasive estimation of aortic systolic (aoSBP) and pulse pressure (aoPP) is achieved by a great variety of devices, which differ markedly in the: 1) principles of recording (applied technology), 2) arterial recording site, 3) model and mathematical analysis applied to signals, and/or 4) calibration scheme. The most reliable non-invasive procedure to obtain aoSBP and aoPP is not well established. Aim: To evaluate the agreement between aoSBP and aoPP values invasively and non-invasively obtained using different: 1) recording techniques (tonometry, oscilometry/plethysmography, ultrasound), 2) recording sites [radial, brachial (BA) and carotid artery (CCA)], 3) waveform analysis algorithms (e.g., direct analysis of the CCA pulse waveform vs. peripheral waveform analysis using general transfer functions, N-point moving average filters, etc.), 4) calibration schemes (systolic-diastolic calibration vs. methods using BA diastolic and mean blood pressure (bMBP); the latter calculated using different equations vs. measured directly by oscillometry, and 5) different equations to estimate bMBP (i.e., using a form factor of 33% ("033"), 41.2% ("0412") or 33% corrected for heart rate ("033HR"). Methods: The invasive aortic (aoBP) and brachial pressure (bBP) (catheterization), and the non-invasive aoBP and bBP were simultaneously obtained in 34 subjects. Non-invasive aoBP levels were obtained using different techniques, analysis methods, recording sites, and calibration schemes. Results: 1) Overall, non-invasive approaches yielded lower aoSBP and aoPP levels than those recorded invasively. 2) aoSBP and aoPP determinations based on CCA recordings, followed by BA recordings, were those that yielded values closest to those recorded invasively. 3) The "033HR" and "0412" calibration schemes ensured the lowest mean error, and the "033" method determined aoBP levels furthest from those recorded invasively. 4) Most of the non-invasive approaches considered overestimated and underestimated aoSBP at low (i.e., 80 mmHg) and high (i.e., 180 mmHg) invasive aoSBP values, respectively. 5) The higher the invasively measured aoPP, the higher the level of underestimation provided by the non-invasive methods. Conclusion: The recording method and site, the mathematical method/model used to quantify aoSBP and aoPP, and to calibrate waveforms, are essential when estimating aoBP. Our study strongly emphasizes the need for methodological transparency and consensus for the non-invasive aoBP assessment.

Brachial Blood Pressure Invasively and Non-Invasively Obtained Using Oscillometry and Applanation Tonometry: Impact of Mean Blood Pressure Equations and Calibration Schemes on Agreement Levels.

The use of oscillometric methods to determine brachial blood pressure (bBP) can lead to a systematic underestimation of the invasively measured systolic (bSBP) and pulse (bPP) pressure levels, together with a significant overestimation of diastolic pressure (bDBP). Similarly, the agreement between brachial mean blood pressure (bMBP), invasively and non-invasively measured, can be affected by inaccurate estimations/assumptions. Despite several methodologies that can be applied to estimate bMBP non-invasively, there is no consensus on which approach leads to the most accurate estimation. Aims: to evaluate the association and agreement between: (1) non-invasive (oscillometry) and invasive bBP; (2) invasive bMBP, and bMBP (i) measured by oscillometry and (ii) calculated using six different equations; and (3) bSBP and bPP invasively and non-invasively obtained by applanation tonometry and employing different calibration methods. To this end, invasive aortic blood pressure and bBP (catheterization), and non-invasive bBP (oscillometry [Mobil-O-Graph] and brachial artery applanation tonometry [SphygmoCor]) were simultaneously obtained (34 subjects, 193 records). bMBP was calculated using different approaches. Results: (i) the agreement between invasive bBP and their respective non-invasive measurements (oscillometry) showed dependence on bBP levels (proportional error); (ii) among the different approaches used to obtain bMBP, the equation that includes a form factor equal to 33% (bMBP = bDBP + bPP/3) showed the best association with the invasive bMBP; (iii) the best approach to estimate invasive bSBP and bPP from tonometry recordings is based on the calibration scheme that employs oscillometric bMBP. On the contrary, the worst association between invasive and applanation tonometry-derived bBP levels was observed when the brachial pulse waveform was calibrated to bMBP quantified as bMBP = bDBP + bPP/3. Our study strongly emphasizes the need for methodological transparency and consensus for non-invasive bMBP assessment.