Why the study?
Non-invasive devices estimating central aortic pressure and wave components differ in arteries studied, techniques, data-analysis algorithms, and calibration schemes.
What is the agreement between brachial oscillometry, radial tonometry, and carotid tonometry for estimating central aortic pressure and wave components in children and young adults?
What is the agreement between brachial oscillometry, radial tonometry, and carotid tonometry for estimating central aortic pressure and wave components in children and young adults?
Significant systematic and proportional differences exist between brachial oscillometry, radial tonometry, and carotid tonometry for estimating central aortic pressure parameters in youth, influenced by calibration scheme and patient characteristics.
Discrepant cSBP, cPP, Pf and Pb values across devices caution against interchangeability in youth; leaves open standardization before wider use.
Non-invasive devices used to estimate central (aortic) systolic pressure (cSBP), pulse pressure (cPP) and forward (Pf) and backward (Pb) wave components from blood pressure (BP) or surrogate signals differ in arteries studied, techniques, data-analysis algorithms and/or calibration schemes (e.g. calibrating to calculated [MBPc] or measured [MBPosc] mean pressure). The aims were to analyze, in children, adolescents and young-adults (1) the agreement between cSBP, cPP, Pf and Pb obtained using carotid (CT) and radial tonometry (RT) and brachial-oscillometry (BOSC); and (2) explanatory factors for the differences between approaches-data and between MBPosc and MBPc.1685 subjects (mean/range age: 14/3-35 y.o.) assigned to three age-related groups (3-12; 12-18; 18-35 y.o.) were included. cSBP, cPP, Pf and Pb were assessed with BOSC (Mobil-O-Graph), CT and RT (SphygmoCor) records. Two calibration schemes were considered: MBPc and MBPosc for calibrations to similar BP levels. Correlation, Bland-Altman tests and multiple regression models were applied. Systematic and proportional errors were observed; errors´ statistical significance and values varied depending on the parameter analyzed, methods compared and group considered. The explanatory factors for the differences between data obtained from the different approaches varied depending on the methods compared. The highest cSBP and cPP were obtained from CT; the lowest from RT. Independently of the technique, parameter or age-group, higher values were obtained calibrating to MBPosc. Age, sex, heart rate, diastolic BP, body weight or height were explanatory factors for the differences in cSBP, cPP, Pf or Pb. Brachial BP levels were explanatory factors for the differences between MBPosc and MBPc.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zinoveev et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: