The impact of calibration approaches on the accuracy of oscillometric central aortic blood pressure measurement.
Journal
Journal of hypertension
ISSN: 1473-5598
Titre abrégé: J Hypertens
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8306882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
11
7
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
11
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Two fully automated oscillometric devices have become available for the noninvasive assessment of central aortic blood pressure (BP). They tend, however, to underestimate SBP. It has been proposed that calibration by mean/diastolic instead of systolic/diastolic brachial BP may reduce this bias. The present work compares the accuracy of these two calibrations in the Mobil-O-Graph. Post-hoc analysis of the largest validation study on noninvasive assessment of central BP so far. Data on both calibration approaches were available in 159 patients without atrial fibrillation, who underwent simultaneous invasive and noninvasive assessment of central BP. Noninvasive BP measurements were conducted using the SphygmoCor XCEL (calibration by systolic/diastolic brachial BP only) and the Mobil-O-Graph (calibration by both systolic/diastolic and mean/diastolic brachial BP). Measurements of both devices and both calibration methods revealed highly significant correlations for systolic and diastolic central BP with invasively assessed BP (P < 0.001 each). Calibration by mean/diastolic and systolic/diastolic BP yielded similar correlations for central DBP (R 0.56 vs. R 0.55, P = 0.919). Correlation of central SBP, however, was significantly lower using calibration by mean/diastolic brachial BP (R 0.86 vs. R 0.74, P = 0.002). Numerically, the SphygmoCor device revealed the highest correlation (R 0.92 for central SBP and 0.72 for central DBP; P < 0.001 each). Calibration by systolic/diastolic brachial BP was associated with an underestimation of central SBP using both the SphygmoCor and the Mobil-O-Graph. Calibration by mean/diastolic brachial BP, instead, was associated with an overestimation, which was numerically comparable (4.8 ± 11.3 vs. -4.2 ± 8.0). The calibration method had little effects on the biases of diastolic measurements. Calibration by mean/diastolic instead of systolic/diastolic brachial BP led to an overestimation instead of underestimation of central SBP without improving accuracy. Hence, mean/diastolic calibration is not necessarily superior to systolic/diastolic calibration and the optimal approach has to be determined in a device-specific manner.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Two fully automated oscillometric devices have become available for the noninvasive assessment of central aortic blood pressure (BP). They tend, however, to underestimate SBP. It has been proposed that calibration by mean/diastolic instead of systolic/diastolic brachial BP may reduce this bias. The present work compares the accuracy of these two calibrations in the Mobil-O-Graph.
METHODS
Post-hoc analysis of the largest validation study on noninvasive assessment of central BP so far. Data on both calibration approaches were available in 159 patients without atrial fibrillation, who underwent simultaneous invasive and noninvasive assessment of central BP. Noninvasive BP measurements were conducted using the SphygmoCor XCEL (calibration by systolic/diastolic brachial BP only) and the Mobil-O-Graph (calibration by both systolic/diastolic and mean/diastolic brachial BP).
RESULTS
Measurements of both devices and both calibration methods revealed highly significant correlations for systolic and diastolic central BP with invasively assessed BP (P < 0.001 each). Calibration by mean/diastolic and systolic/diastolic BP yielded similar correlations for central DBP (R 0.56 vs. R 0.55, P = 0.919). Correlation of central SBP, however, was significantly lower using calibration by mean/diastolic brachial BP (R 0.86 vs. R 0.74, P = 0.002). Numerically, the SphygmoCor device revealed the highest correlation (R 0.92 for central SBP and 0.72 for central DBP; P < 0.001 each). Calibration by systolic/diastolic brachial BP was associated with an underestimation of central SBP using both the SphygmoCor and the Mobil-O-Graph. Calibration by mean/diastolic brachial BP, instead, was associated with an overestimation, which was numerically comparable (4.8 ± 11.3 vs. -4.2 ± 8.0). The calibration method had little effects on the biases of diastolic measurements.
CONCLUSION
Calibration by mean/diastolic instead of systolic/diastolic brachial BP led to an overestimation instead of underestimation of central SBP without improving accuracy. Hence, mean/diastolic calibration is not necessarily superior to systolic/diastolic calibration and the optimal approach has to be determined in a device-specific manner.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32649641
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002563
pii: 00004872-202011000-00012
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2154-2160Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Roman MJ, Devereux RB, Kizer JR, Lee ET, Galloway JM, Ali T, et al. Central pressure more strongly relates to vascular disease and outcome than does brachial pressure: the Strong Heart Study. Hypertension 2007; 50:197–203.
Jankowski P, Kawecka-Jaszcz K, Czarnecka D, Brzozowska-Kiszka M, Styczkiewicz K, Styczkiewicz M, et al. Ascending aortic, but not brachial blood pressure-derived indices are related to coronary atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis 2004; 176:151–155.
Huang CM, Wang KL, Cheng HM, Chuang SY, Sung SH, Yu WC, et al. Central versus ambulatory blood pressure in the prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities. J Hypertens 2011; 29:454–459.
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.
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.
Papaioannou TG, Karageorgopoulou TD, Sergentanis TN, Protogerou AD, Psaltopoulou T, Sharman JE, et al. Accuracy of commercial devices and methods for noninvasive estimation of aortic systolic blood pressure a systematic review and meta-analysis of invasive validation studies. J Hypertens 2016; 34:1237–1248.
Gotzmann M, Hogeweg M, Seibert FS, Rohn BJ, Bergbauer M, Babel N, et al. Accuracy of fully automated oscillometric central aortic blood pressure measurement techniques. J Hypertens 2020; 38:235–242.
Takazawa K, Kobayashi H, Kojima I, Aizawa A, Kinoh M, Sugo Y, et al. Estimation of central aortic systolic pressure using late systolic inflection of radial artery pulse and its application to vasodilator therapy. J Hypertens 2012; 30:908–916.
Costello BT, Schultz MG, Black JA, Sharman JE. Evaluation of a brachial cuff and suprasystolic waveform algorithm method to noninvasively derive central blood pressure. Am J Hypertens 2015; 28:480–486.
Sharman JE, Avolio AP, Baulmann J, Benetos A, Blacher J, Blizzard CL, et al. Validation of noninvasive central blood pressure devices: ARTERY Society task force consensus statement on protocol standardization. Eur Heart J 2017; 38:2805–2812.
Krouwer JS. Why Bland–Altmanplots should use X, not (Y+X)/2 when X is a reference method. Stat Med 2008; 27:778–780.
Picone DS, Schultz MG, Otahal P, Aakhus S, Al-Jumaily AM, Black JA, et al. Accuracy of cuff-measured blood pressure: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70:572–586.
Weber T, Wassertheurer S, Rammer M, Maurer E, Hametner B, Mayer CC, et al. Validation of a brachial cuff-based method for estimating central systolic blood pressure. Hypertension 2011; 58:825–832.
Pucci G, Cheriyan J, Hubsch A, Hickson SS, Gajendragadkar PR, Watson T, et al. Evaluation of the Vicorder, a novel cuff-based device for the noninvasive estimation of central blood pressure. J Hypertens 2013; 31:77–85.
Laugesen E, Rossen NB, Peters CD, Maeng M, Ebbehoj E, Knudsen ST, et al. Assessment of central blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: a comparison between SphygmoCor and invasively measured values. Am J Hypertens 2014; 27:169–176.
Pereira T, Maldonado J, Coutinho R, Cardoso E, Laranjeiro M, Andrade I, Conde J. Invasive validation of the complior analyse in the assessment of central artery pressure curves: a methodological study. Blood Press Monit 2014; 19:280–287.
Wassertheurer S, Baumann M. Assessment of systolic aortic pressure and its association to all cause mortality critically depends on waveform calibration. J Hypertens 2015; 33:1884–1888.
Wassertheurer S, Hametner B, Mayer CC, Hafez A, Negishi K, Papaioannou TG, et al. Aortic systolic pressure derived with different calibration methods: associations to brachial systolic pressure in the general population. Blood Press Monit 2018; 23:134–140.
Negishi K, Yang H, Wang Y, Nolan MT, Negishi T, Pathan F, et al. Importance of calibration method in central blood pressure for cardiac structural abnormalities. Am J Hypertens 2016; 29:1070–1076.