Key result
Noninvasive central BP approximates invasive readings but underestimates true central SBP, particularly with cuff devices.
Why the study?
Calibration affects central blood pressure estimation accuracy, prompting investigation into factors influencing noninvasive measurement accuracy, calibration methods, and device types.
Does noninvasive central blood pressure measurement accurately reflect invasive central blood pressure in participants without overt heart disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=50)
Does noninvasive central blood pressure measurement accurately reflect invasive central blood pressure in participants without overt heart disease?
Noninvasive central blood pressure measurements are comparable to invasive measurements but may slightly underestimate true central systolic blood pressure, particularly when using cuff-based devices.
Offers practical noninvasive alternative but cautions against cuff-device underestimation; leaves open prospective validation needs.
Calibration affects central blood pressure (BP) estimation accuracy. Factors influencing the accuracy of noninvasive central BP measurement, type of calibration method implemented (systolic/diastolic BP or mean/diastolic BP), and type of BP measurement device used (devices using the transfer function method, directly measurement from the carotid artery, and the transfer function-like method), were investigated. Fifty participants (aged 62.4 ± 8.9 years) without overt heart diseases were recruited. Invasive aortic and radial BP was measured. Simultaneously, noninvasive central BP was measured using three types of devices. The mean invasive aortic BP was 127 ± 19/95 ± 14 mmHg. Noninvasive central BP tended to be slightly lower than invasive BP, though without statistical significance. The type of calibration method did not significantly influence the noninvasive cSBP measurements (p ≥ 0.24). Results from cuff-based devices were significantly lower than invasive measurements (p = 0.04). Multiple regression analyses showed that gender was significantly correlated with the accuracy of noninvasive cSBP measurement. In conclusion, noninvasive cSBP measurements are comparable to invasive measurements but might underestimate true cSBP. The type of device may affect the accuracy of measurement. Either of the two calibration methods is acceptable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chi et al. (2022) conducted a cross-sectional in without overt heart diseases (n=50). Noninvasive central BP measurement vs. Invasive aortic BP measurement was evaluated on Accuracy of noninvasive central BP measurement compared to invasive measurement (p=0.04). Noninvasive central blood pressure measurements are comparable to invasive measurements but may underestimate true central systolic blood pressure, particularly with cuff-based devices (p=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: