Key result
Brachial-cuff blood pressure waveforms reasonably estimate intra-aortic reservoir pressure peak with a 0.77 concordance.
Why the study?
Whether reservoir pressure and excess pressure can be derived non-invasively from operator-independent cuff device-measured brachial or central blood pressure waveforms had never been examined.
Does non-invasive measurement of brachial-cuff blood pressure waveforms accurately estimate intra-aortic reservoir pressure parameters in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
Cross-Sectional (n=162)
Does non-invasive measurement of brachial-cuff blood pressure waveforms accurately estimate intra-aortic reservoir pressure parameters in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
Brachial-cuff methods can reasonably estimate intra-aortic reservoir pressure, but excess pressure estimation requires refinement.
Brachial-cuff waveforms may aid reservoir pressure estimation during angiography; leaves open excess pressure accuracy and requires prospective validation.
Reservoir pressure parameters [eg, reservoir pressure (RP) and excess pressure (XSP)] are biomarkers derived from blood pressure (BP) waveforms that have been shown to predict cardiovascular events independent of conventional cardiovascular risk markers. However, whether RP and XSP can be derived non-invasively from operator-independent cuff device measured brachial or central BP waveforms has never been examined. This study sought to achieve this by comparison of cuff reservoir pressure parameters with intra-aortic reservoir pressure parameters. 162 participants (aged 61 ± 10 years, 72% male) undergoing coronary angiography had the simultaneous measurement of cuff BP waveforms (via SphygmoCor XCEL, AtCor Medical) and intra-aortic BP waveforms (via fluid-filled catheter). RP and XSP derived from cuff acquired brachial and central BP waveforms were compared with intra-aortic measures. Concordance between brachial-cuff and intra-aortic measurement was moderate-to-good for RP peak (36 ± 11 vs 48 ± 14 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.71-0.82), and poor-to-moderate for XSP peak (28 ± 10 vs 24 ± 9 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.60). Concordance between central-cuff and intra-aortic measurement was moderate-to-good for RP peak (35 ± 9 vs 46 ± 14 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.82), but poor for XSP peak (12 ± 3 vs 24 ± 9 mm Hg, P < 0.001; ICC 0.12, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.31). In conclusion, both brachial-cuff and central-cuff methods can reasonably estimate intra-aortic RP, whereas XSP can only be acceptably derived from brachial-cuff BP waveforms. This should enable widespread application to determine the clinical significance, but there is significant room for refinement of the method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Participants undergoing coronary angiography (n=162). Brachial-cuff blood pressure waveforms vs. Intra-aortic blood pressure waveforms was evaluated on Concordance between brachial-cuff and intra-aortic measurement for reservoir pressure (RP) peak (ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.82, p=<0.001). Brachial-cuff blood pressure waveforms reasonably estimated intra-aortic reservoir pressure peak with moderate-to-good concordance (ICC 0.77; 95% CI 0.71-0.82; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: