Relation of blood pressure and organ damage: comparison between feasible, noninvasive central hemodynamic measures and conventional brachial measures

Abstract

Objective: The present cross-sectional study investigated whether central SBP and pulse pressure (PP) measured noninvasively with a novel cuff-based stand-alone monitor are more strongly associated with hypertensive end-organ damage than corresponding brachial measures.

Methods: We investigated the cross-sectional association of central versus brachial SBP and PP with echocardiographic left ventricular mass index (LVMI), LV hypertrophy (LVH), carotid intima-media thickness (IMT), and increased IMT (IMT ≥ 75th percentile) among 246 participants drawn from the general population (mean age 57.2 years, 55.3% women).

Results: All blood pressure (BP) measures were positively correlated with LVMI and IMT (P < 0.001 for all). Brachial and central SBP correlated equally strongly with LVMI (r = 0.42 versus 0.40, P for difference 0.19) and IMT (r = 0.32 versus 0.33, P = 0.60). However, brachial PP correlated more strongly than central PP with LVMI (r = 0.34 versus 0.27, P = 0.03) and IMT (r = 0.40 versus 0.35, P = 0.04). In multivariable-adjusted logistic models, all four BP measures were significantly associated with LVH and increased IMT (P ≤ 0.03 for all). However, the diagnostic accuracy of logistic regression models that included brachial or central hemodynamic parameters was similar for LVH [area under curve (AUC) for SBP: 0.74 versus 0.76, P = 0.16; AUC for PP: 0.75 versus 0.73, P = 0.35] and IMT (AUC for SBP: 0.61 versus 0.61, P = 0.67; AUC for PP: 0.63 versus 0.61, P = 0.29).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that central SBP and PP measured with a stand-alone noninvasive BP monitor do not improve diagnostic accuracy for end-organ damage over corresponding brachial measures.