Key result
Estimating MAP via 33% and 40% form-factors yields inaccurate values compared to reference aortic MAP.
Why the study?
Variable central-to-peripheral SBP amplification may influence the accuracy of form-factor-derived mean arterial pressure.
Does SBP amplification influence the accuracy of form-factor-derived mean arterial pressure compared to waveform integration in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
Cross-Sectional (n=188)
Does SBP amplification influence the accuracy of form-factor-derived mean arterial pressure compared to waveform integration in patients undergoing coronary angiography?
p-value: p=<0.001
Estimating mean arterial pressure via form-factors produces inaccurate values due to variable systolic blood pressure amplification, suggesting waveform integration should be preferred for accurate assessment.
Form-factor MAP estimates differ from aortic integration due to SBP amplification; leaves open optimal noninvasive method pending validation.
OBJECTIVES: Accurate assessment of mean arterial pressure (MAP) is crucial in research and clinical settings. Measurement of MAP requires not only pressure waveform integration but can also be estimated via form-factor equations incorporating peripheral SBP. SBP may increase variably from central-to-peripheral arteries (SBP amplification), and could influence accuracy of form-factor-derived MAP, which we aimed to determine. METHODS: One hundred and eighty-eight patients (69% men, age 60 ± 10 years) undergoing coronary angiography had intra-arterial pressure measured in the ascending aorta, brachial and radial arteries. Reference MAP was measured by waveform integration, and form-factor-derived MAP using 33 and 40% form-factors. RESULTS: Reference MAP decreased from the aorta to the brachial (-0.7 ± 4.2 mmHg) and radial artery (-1.7 ± 4.8 mmHg), whereas form-factor-derived MAP increased (33% form-factor 1.1 ± 4.2 and 1.7 ± 4.7 mmHg; 40% form-factor 0.9 ± 4.8 and 1.4 ± 5.4 mmHg, respectively). Form-factor-derived MAP was significantly different to reference aortic MAP (33% form-factor -2.5 ± 4.6 and -1.6 ± 5.8, P < 0.001; 40% form-factor 2.5 ± 5.0 and 3.9 ± 6.4 mmHg, P < 0.001, brachial and radial arteries, respectively), with significant variation in the brachial form-factor required (FFreq) to generate MAP equivalent to reference aortic MAP (FFreq range 20-57% brachial; 17-74% radial). Aortic-to-brachial SBP amplification was strongly related to brachial FFreq (r = -0.695, P < 0.001). The 33% form-factor was most accurate with high aortic-to-brachial SBP amplification (33% form-factor MAP vs. reference aortic MAP difference 0.06 ± 3.93 mmHg, P = 0.89) but overestimated reference aortic MAP with low aortic-to-brachial SBP amplification (+5.8 ± 4.6 mmHg, P < 0.001). The opposite was observed for the 40% form-factor. CONCLUSION: Due to variable SBP amplification, estimating MAP via form-factors produces nonphysiological inaccurate values. These findings have important implications for accurate assessment of MAP in research and clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schultz et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Patients undergoing coronary angiography (n=188). Form-factor-derived mean arterial pressure vs. Reference MAP by waveform integration was evaluated on Difference between form-factor-derived MAP and reference aortic MAP (p=<0.001). Estimating mean arterial pressure via 33% and 40% form-factors produced inaccurate values compared to reference aortic MAP (e.g., 33% form-factor difference -2.5 ± 4.6 mmHg at brachial, P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: