Key result
Noninvasive brachial systolic blood pressure was less accurate in estimating invasive central systolic blood pressure (MAE 6.9 mm Hg) compared to pulse waveform analysis (MAE 5.0 mm Hg).
Why the study?
Is noninvasive brachial systolic blood pressure as accurate as noninvasive central systolic blood pressure methods in estimating invasive central aortic systolic blood pressure?
Observational (n=140)
Is noninvasive brachial systolic blood pressure as accurate as noninvasive central systolic blood pressure methods in estimating invasive central aortic systolic blood pressure?
Noninvasive central systolic blood pressure measures, particularly pulse waveform analysis, are more accurate than noninvasive brachial systolic blood pressure in estimating invasive central aortic systolic blood pressure.
Noninvasive brachial SBP accuracy for invasive central SBP remains uncertain; leaves open whether central estimates should guide hypertension management.
OBJECTIVES: Noninvasive brachial systolic blood pressure (nSBP-B) usually approaches invasive central systolic blood pressure (iSBP-C) with a high correlation. Whether nSBP-B is an accurate estimate of iSBP-C remained to be investigated. Thus, this study aimed to compare the errors of nSBP-B and noninvasive central systolic blood pressure (nSBP-C) with different techniques in estimating iSBP-C. METHODS: Simultaneous invasive high-fidelity central aortic pressure waveforms and the noninvasive left brachial pulse volume recording (PVR) waveform were recorded in a Generation group ( N = 40) and a Validation group ( N = 100). The accuracy of the noninvasive estimates of iSBP-C obtained from analysis of the calibrated PVR waveform using the generalized transfer function (GTF), pulse waveform analysis (PWA), and N-point moving average (NPMA) methods was examined in the Validation group by calculating the mean absolute error (MAE). RESULTS: In Generation group, the MAE was 4.6±4.1mm Hg between nSBP-B and invasive brachial SBP, and 6.8±5.5mm Hg between nSBP-B and iSBP-C. In comparison, the MAE of between iSBP-C and nSBP-C with PWA, NPMA, and GTF were 5.5±4.5, 5.8±4.9, and 5.9±5.0mm Hg, respectively. In Validation group, the MAE of nSBP-B (6.9±4.6mm Hg) for estimating iSBP-C was significantly greater than that of PWA (5.0±3.4mm Hg) and NPMA (6.1±4.4mm Hg), and GTF (6.1±4.9mm Hg). The percentage of absolute band error ≤5mm Hg was 62% for nSBP-B, 69% for GTF, 83% for PWA, and 69% for NPMA. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of nSBP-B was inferior to the n SBP-C measures in estimating iSBP-C.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shih et al. (2015) reported an observational. Noninvasive brachial systolic blood pressure (nSBP-B) vs. Noninvasive central systolic blood pressure (nSBP-C) techniques was evaluated on Mean absolute error (MAE) in estimating invasive central systolic blood pressure (iSBP-C). Noninvasive brachial systolic blood pressure was less accurate in estimating invasive central systolic blood pressure (MAE 6.9 mm Hg) compared to pulse waveform analysis (MAE 5.0 mm Hg).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: