Accuracy of fully automated oscillometric central aortic blood pressure measurement techniques
- PMID: 31503132
- DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002237
Accuracy of fully automated oscillometric central aortic blood pressure measurement techniques
Abstract
Background: Central aortic blood pressure (cBP) is a valuable predictor of cardiovascular risk. The lack of fully automated measurement devices impeded an implementation in daily clinical practice so far. The present study compares two novel automated oscillometric devices with invasively measured cBP.
Methods: From March 2017 to March 2018, we enrolled consecutive patients undergoing elective coronary angiography to this cross-sectional study. Noninvasive assessment of cBP was performed by the SphygmoCor XCEL device and the Mobil-O-Graph NG device simultaneously to invasive measurement.
Results: Our study included 502 patients (228 women, 274 men) with a mean age of 67.9 ± 11.6 years. The noninvasive measurement of cBP was successful in 498 patients (99%) with SphygmoCor XCEL device and in 441 patients (88%) with Mobil-O-Graph NG device (P = 0.451). Measurements of both devices revealed a high correlation to invasively measured systolic (SphygmoCor R 0.864, P < 0.001; Mobil-O-Graph R 0.763, P < 0.001) and diastolic (SphygmoCor R 0.772, P < 0.001; Mobil-O-Graph R 0.618, P < 0.001) cBP. Both devices slightly underestimated systolic and overestimated diastolic central blood pressure: biases were -5.0 ± 7.7/0.5 ± 6.2 mmHg with SphygmoCor XCEL and -6.0 ± 10.4/3.6 ± 8.3 mmHg with Mobil-O-Graph NG device. Correlations (R) were higher and biases were lower with the SphygmoCor device (P < 0.001 each).
Conclusion: The present study is the largest validation study of noninvasive cBP measurement techniques so far and shows that two current automated oscillometric monitors are able to assess cBP with acceptable accuracy. Automated oscillometric devices may facilitate the implementation of cBP in daily clinical practice.
Comment in
-
Clarity in validation protocols for central blood pressure devices.J Hypertens. 2020 May;38(5):974. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002376. J Hypertens. 2020. PMID: 32235180 No abstract available.
-
Reply to Clarity in validation protocols for central blood pressure devices.J Hypertens. 2020 May;38(5):974-975. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002377. J Hypertens. 2020. PMID: 32235181 No abstract available.
References
-
- Lawes CM, Vander Hoorn S, Rodgers A. International Society of Hypertension. Global burden of blood-pressure-related disease, 2001. Lancet 2008; 371:1513–1518.
-
- Vlachopoulos C, Aznaouridis K, O’Rourke MF, Safar ME, Baou K, Stefanadis C. Prediction of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality with central haemodynamics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 2010; 31:1865–1871.
-
- Cheng HM, Chuang SY, Sung SH, Yu WC, Pearson A, Lakatta EG, et al. Derivation and validation of diagnostic thresholds for central blood pressure measurements based on long-term cardiovascular risks. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:1780–1787.
-
- Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, et al. ASCOT Investigators. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366:895–906.
-
- Williams B, Lacy PS, Thom SM, Cruickshank K, Stanton A, Collier D, et al. CAFE Investigators; Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial Investigators; CAFE Steering Committee and Writing Committee. Differential impact of blood pressure-lowering drugs on central aortic pressure and clinical outcomes: principal results of the Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) study. Circulation 2006; 113:1213–1225.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources